PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.
	To be considered on Tuesday 10 June at Four o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Nuclear Industry

Anne Picking: What assessment she has made of the effects of the policies set out in the Energy White Paper on jobs in the nuclear industry in Scotland.

Anne McGuire: The White Paper sets out a framework for energy policy that will significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, with increased priority given to energy efficiency measures and to generation from renewable sources. The White Paper has no immediate implications for jobs in the nuclear industry in Scotland. Nuclear generation continues to play an important part in supplying the UK's energy needs.

Anne Picking: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I wonder whether she will expand on what is meant by the word "immediate". Although the White Paper makes a laudable case for renewables, we have decimated the coal industry in Scotland, thereby wiping out an energy source, and we are in danger of wiping out another energy source that supplies 50 per cent. of electricity in Scotland. That will eventually have an impact on jobs and an effect on communities and workers. What does my hon. Friend have to say about that?

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend is a doughty fighter on behalf of her constituents, particularly those who are employed at Torness, but may I just correct one inaccuracy? I know that she did not mean it, but it was not this Government who decimated the coal industry. Looking across the Chamber at the Conservative Benches, we can see who decimated the coal industry in Scotland and the UK. My hon. Friend is correct in that our renewable objectives are ambitious, but we also recognise that nuclear generation is still an important source of carbon-free electricity. However, at the moment, new nuclear build is commercially unattractive, and the disposal of nuclear wastes is obviously an important issue.

Peter Duncan: The Minister must accept that this chaotic energy White Paper will regrettably lead to a run-down in employment at existing stations in Scotland and, in our view, to a mistaken delay in commissioning replacements, not least at Chapelcross, where some of my constituents are employed. When will her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earn her place at the Cabinet table and fight for new-build power stations on existing licensed sites in Scotland to give energy policy credibility there? Or is her right hon. Friend just bored with the subject?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman is very clever, isn't he? [Hon. Members: "He hides it well."] Yes, as my hon. Friends say, he hides it very well. My right hon. Friend is a strong advocate for all Scottish issues at the Cabinet table, and we certainly do not need to take lessons from Conservative Members about how to fight for Scotland, since they palpably never did. The reality is that, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, no one is asking for new nuclear build at the moment. The energy White Paper holds to the position as it is at the moment, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to be accurate about jobs, he should realise that decommissioning itself creates many jobs.

Bill Tynan: Regarding jobs, obviously, if we see the demise of nuclear power or new nuclear build, yes, we will support sustainables, but we will not meet our targets on CO2 emissions unless we include nuclear build in the policy. Will my hon. Friend push the facts in the White Paper, so that we have a discussion and debate on new nuclear build as soon as possible, as it is an important element for the nuclear industry and workers in Scotland?

Anne McGuire: I agree with my hon. Friend that, at the appropriate time, we ought to have a wide-ranging discussion on nuclear energy and whether or not nuclear power will be needed to support our energy supply industry in the United Kingdom. The energy White Paper is very clear about the fact that we will have to begin consultations as and when appropriate.

Michael Weir: If we are to meet the aspirations for CO2 emissions and renewables, rather than talking about new nuclear energy build, should we not be considering public investment in the infrastructure of the national grid to ensure that it is strengthened in those areas that can provide renewable energy and much-needed jobs?

Anne McGuire: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is already being looked at and is part of the wider discussion that arises from the energy White Paper, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman and his party will participate in that consultation.

Mark Lazarowicz: Given the vast subsidies that the Government have recently had to pay out to the failing nuclear industry, may I assure my hon. Friend that very many people in Scotland will welcome both the Government's commitment not to put any more money down that drain and their decision not to go ahead with any new nuclear power stations at this stage? Will she join me in welcoming the decision of the new partnership in Scotland, led by Labour, to aim for a 40 per cent. renewables target by 2020? Will she give the Government's commitment now to give their full backing to that ambitious but important target for increasing renewable energy, thereby providing many more jobs in the energy industry in Scotland?

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend is correct that the new Labour-led partnership in Scotland has identified very clear targets, and as part of the development of the energy White Paper we were in constant discussion with the then Scottish Executive. This is a matter for the Scottish Executive within the overall framework of energy policy in the United Kingdom. I want to highlight one issue, however, in relation to British Energy. It was important for the Government to secure the supply element of British Energy and to support its restructuring, which was the reason why the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003 was given Royal Assent earlier this month.

White Fishing Industry

Ann Winterton: If she will make a statement on the economic viability of the Scottish white fishing industry.

Helen Liddell: The Government are committed to helping secure a sustainable future for the Scottish fishing industry. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched a strategic review of the fishing industry in January. This study, which involves industry stakeholders, and with which I am personally involved, will consider all aspects of the fisheries sector and make recommendations to influence future decision making.

Ann Winterton: Commissioner Fischler has made it clear that the cod recovery programme could last between five and 10 years, by which time there will not be a Scottish white fish fleet, further devastating coastal communities both economically and socially. Can the Secretary of State say why the Commissioner is so confident of success, bearing in mind the fact that environmental conditions for cod are deteriorating in EU waters and that there is a continuing shortage of food in the British sector owing to industrial fishing?

Helen Liddell: The hon. Lady summed up, in her final clause, the issue regarding declining cod stocks. The important thing for the long-term future of the white fishing industry in Scotland that we have a sustainable and coherent strategy for the future, which secures the long-term supply of fishing stocks. That is the purpose of the Prime Minister's strategic review. The issue should have been addressed years ago, but it was ducked by the Administration whom the hon. Lady supported, and now we have to ensure sustainable long-term supplies of white fish. I have been involved in extensive discussions with the industry as recently as two weeks ago, and will continue to have those discussions. Scaremongering and populism, however, will not resolve the problems of the white fish industry.

Rosemary McKenna: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the son of one of my constituents is a fisherman on Barra and is currently travelling through Europe with some other fishermen from Barra and Vatersay? What advice would she give to them if they happen to travel to Seville and meet up with some Spanish fishermen?

Helen Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I hope that one of the first things that these fishermen from Vatersay and Barra would point out to their Spanish colleagues is the importance of the fishing industry to Scotland. I know that they will have many opportunities and that they will be great ambassadors for Scotland. The most recent dispatches have it that the fishermen from Vatersay have now reached Madrid and that the Vatersay Boys are turning the town over. On behalf of every Member of the House, we hope that all the 50,000 Scots who have travelled to Seville, fishermen or not, have a very good time. If I may echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I hope that the Celtic team bring back the UEFA cup and that the Vatersay Boys have a very good time convincing their Spanish colleagues—[Interruption.] The House will be able to tell how in touch Opposition Members are with the people of Scotland.

Angus Robertson: While wishing any Scottish sporting team success, may I say that it will be a surprise to people in fishing communities that the Government are making light of the crisis that they are going through at this time. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the European Union has had an underspend of more than Euro7 billion? Can she tell the House how much of the Euro7 billion-plus will come back to the UK, and how much in terms of extra resources will go to crisis-hit communities? How much extra, in terms of the extra resources that have been put on the table by the European Commission, is she fighting to secure in Cabinet?

Helen Liddell: The hon. Gentleman always gives just part of the story. I do not know whether he does so deliberately or whether he is merely ill-informed. The whole issue of fisheries support is on multi-year programmes. Until the multi-year programme is finished, it is impossible to comment on it. I should have thought that the election a couple of weeks ago would have taught the Scottish National party some lessons. Quite frankly, a party that lost eight seats—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Anne Begg.

Anne Begg: I have just returned from Andalucia, which I visited with the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. Its fishing industry is suffering a downturn and many of its fishermen face the same problems as we do in north-east Scotland. I understand that the first meeting of the No. 10 strategy unit took place this morning. Will my right hon. Friend give us a progress report and tell us how the strategy will be worked out in the future and how that will help the Scottish white fish industry?

Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend takes a coherent and reasoned view of the difficulties facing the fishing industry and does not indulge in scaremongering, unlike Members of some other parties. Official-level contacts in relation to the Prime Minister's strategic review have begun. I met several of the representatives two weeks ago when I was in Brussels at the sea fish exposition and I know that the fishing industry greatly welcomes the review. It will take some time before we know the review's conclusions because considerable issues must be addressed. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, shares the view that the review represents the most coherent way ahead to recognise the scale of the problems. Hard decisions might have to be taken but at least we will then know how to secure a proper future for the fishing industry and the fish processing industry, which is so important in her constituency.

Jacqui Lait: The right hon. Lady is trying to imply that she is an active participant in discussions on the crisis. Her reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) did not make it entirely clear whether she was at this morning's meeting with the Prime Minister. Has she discussed the crisis in the fishing industry with the Prime Minister? Does she have any plans to meet the new Scottish fisheries Minister? Has she held discussions on the issue with the UK fisheries Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), in the past seven weeks?

Helen Liddell: Let me begin with the hon. Lady's last point. I discussed the situation of fisheries in Scotland in general with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary as recently as last Wednesday. I left the Prime Minister half an hour ago, and I have regular extensive discussions with the fisheries industry—as recently as two weeks ago at the sea fish exposition in Brussels. I recognise the difficulties faced by the white fish industry but we must remember that there are other fisheries in Scotland. For example, considerable action, some of which has been extremely hard, has been taken on the pelagic fleet and that sector of the industry is consequently showing considerable strength. The hon. Lady should not indulge in scaremongering. The issues are serious and must be dealt with seriously.

Jacqui Lait: I am sure that Scottish fishermen would not consider the situation in which they find themselves to be indicative of scaremongering. I am delighted to hear that the right hon. Lady has met the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Will she assure us that she has discussed the UK Government's proposals regarding Euro150 million compensation for the white fish industry? Struan Stevenson, the Conservative MEP who serves on the Fisheries Committee, has secured the European Parliament's agreement to set that sum aside as compensation for the industry.

Helen Liddell: The Scottish Executive have already set aside £50 million for transitional assistance for the white fish industry, and that is already working its way through the system. I shall hold early discussions with the Scottish fisheries Minister as soon as he or she is in place. On the point on funding for fisheries, the state aids regime is being analysed by the European Commission. No money can be paid out, as I am sure Mr. Struan Stevenson knows, until the Commission reaches a conclusion on state aids.

Hepatitis C

Annabelle Ewing: If she will discuss the issue of hepatitis C sufferers in Scotland at her next scheduled meeting with the First Minister.

Helen Liddell: I expect to discuss a range of issues at my next meeting with the First Minister.

Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Scottish Secretary for her answer. Surely the key issue is whether she will fight for the right of the Scottish Parliament to pay compensation and for a 100 per cent. exemption from the benefit clawback rules. If she will not do that, will she explain to hepatitis C sufferers in Scotland why on earth Scottish taxpayers are paying £7 million for the running costs of her office?

Helen Liddell: I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have learned a lesson when she saw the majority in her constituency plummet: scaremongering does not work. There are serious legal and policy-based issues in relation to hepatitis C. There have been extensive discussions between the Scottish Executive and the Department for Work and Pensions, not least on whether payments should be taken into account as capital or income when someone claims income-related benefits. Those discussions could not continue because of the Scottish Parliament elections. As soon as the Minister for Health and Community Care is in place in the Scottish Parliament, those discussions will continue. The issues are not superficial and the hon. Lady should not treat them in a superficial manner.

Ian Davidson: During the Secretary of State's next meeting with the First Minister, will she make clear this House's unequivocal opposition to proportional representation for local government?

Helen Liddell: As my hon. Friend is aware, those matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that he voted in favour of the Scotland Act 1998, which sets that out quite clearly.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Given the changes in public health laboratories and what might be happening both north and south of the border, can the right hon. Lady assure us that diseases like hepatitis C will be considered on a national basis and not broken up and devoluted to any part of the nation?

Helen Liddell: I read some strange words over the weekend, the origins of which I had never seen before, and "devoluted" falls into a similar category. I think the hon. Gentleman means devolved. However, he makes a valid point in relation not just to public health laboratories but to the Medical Research Council and its work, not least on diseases such as hepatitis C. There is a need for clear co-operation and clear guidelines to deal with such problems. Places like Edinburgh are world leaders in that type of research. Both the UK Government and the Scottish Executive are proud of that. We aim to ensure that such bodies are well funded and have the resources that enable them to make a proper contribution. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is very valid.

Winter Fuel Payments

Malcolm Savidge: How many pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the £300 winter fuel payment for the over-80s.

Anne McGuire: We estimate that around 200,000 pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the £100 additional payment attached to the winter fuel payment.

Malcolm Savidge: All our Government's measures to help people cope with winter cold are particularly welcome in northern Scotland. Does my hon. Friend consider that those central Government policies will be valuably supplemented by the plans of the recently re-elected Labour-led Scottish Executive to extend free central heating to pensioners?

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The partnership of the UK-wide winter fuel payment and the implementation of local initiatives, such as the warm homes initiative, has made a difference to people in Scotland, especially pensioners, hence the Labour-led Administration in Holyrood.

John Thurso: The increase in winter fuel payments for pensioners will be most welcome if they are received on time. In that regard, is the Minister aware of the complete shambles that accompanied the introduction of the working tax credit and the hardship that that caused? What assurance can she give Scottish pensioners that winter fuel payments will not suffer from the same bureaucratic incompetence and create similar hardship?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that winter fuel payments are going into their sixth season, if I can put it that way. As far as I am aware, there have been no major difficulties with their distribution. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has addressed some of the issues in relation to the transfer to the new working tax credit.

Jimmy Wray: The March report for 2001–02 stated that there are £4.5 billion of unclaimed benefits in the UK, £500 million of which are in Scotland. Of the 11 most deprived areas in the UK, four are in Glasgow. Will the Minister approach the Chancellor to ring-fence all that unclaimed benefit so that it can be given to the poor?

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend is well aware that the Government have never hidden benefits under a bushel, but have advertised them and encouraged people to pick up their benefits. The Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have consistently made it obvious that we want people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. I appeal again to the 71 Members of Parliament, each of whom is considered to be a leader in their community, to ensure that as much publicity as possible is given to benefit take-up, complementing the work done by the DWP and the Treasury.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution

Alistair Carmichael: What devolution issues have been raised since 8 April.

Ann McKechin: What devolution issues she has dealt with since 8 April.

Lynda Clark: Since 8 April, 39 devolution issues have been intimated to me. They concerned a range of matters including delay in criminal proceedings, solitary confinement under the prison rules, offences that involve the narration of previous convictions, the requirement on the defence to lodge notice of intention to lead sexual history evidence in trials, and the use of evidence from now-deceased witnesses.

Alistair Carmichael: The Advocate-General will be aware that in my constituency there is a great deal of interest locally in the position of udal law, particularly as it relates to ownership and control of the seabed. That has led to the establishment of a website, www.udallaw.com. Has the hon. and learned Lady considered the position of udal law in relation to the seabed, and if not, will she do so, and offer appropriate advice to her Government colleagues?

Lynda Clark: I remember being taught about udal law at university, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman was. No doubt it has come in extremely useful to his constituents. He raises an important matter. Udal law has an important history in the Orkney and Shetland isles, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his legal background and training in a Scottish university, will be of great use to his constituents in that regard. With respect to the specific reservation in the Scotland Act, udal law is not reserved. I do not know whether I am pleased about that or not. In general, land law is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I enter the usual caveat: it all depends on the specific circumstances of the problem raised. Obviously, individual property owners must take legal advice on the extent of their own proprietorial interests.

Ann McKechin: I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend could explain the basis for the requirement on the defence to lodge a notice of intention to discuss sexual histories in trials.

Lynda Clark: A new requirement was introduced by the Scottish Parliament in the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002. As a result of that Act, a number of devolution issues have been intimated to me. I mentioned one of them in my answer a moment ago. As yet, there has been no authoritative determination of the point that was challenged. I undertake to keep my hon. Friend advised when there is such a decision.

Human Rights

Tam Dalyell: What issues relating to human rights she has considered since 8 April.

Lynda Clark: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

Tam Dalyell: Will my hon. and learned Friend get together with the Attorney-General and the Foreign Office lawyers to consider the legal situation of two groups of people: Iraqi diplomats like Dr. Amin, who may have done nothing wrong, and is paid by nobody, with family consequences; and those like Tariq Aziz, who may have done a great deal that is wrong, but are nevertheless entitled to some kind of trial? We had better be careful about victors' justice.

Lynda Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for his advice. The general matters that he raises are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure my hon. Friend will find an appropriate opportunity to raise the matter directly. As regards meetings with the Attorney-General, my hon. Friend is aware that the matters that we discuss are generally confidential.

Devolution

Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised since 8 April.

Lynda Clark: Again, I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

Annabelle Ewing: What difference does the Advocate-General believe her office has made in furthering the interests of the Scottish legal system and, indeed, the Scottish people, during the last couple of months?

Lynda Clark: It is important that the devolution settlement works well in legal terms. As the hon. Lady knows, one of my statutory functions is to look at Scottish Parliament legislation and deal with challenges to the acts of Scottish Ministers. I do so with the interests of the UK Government in mind, but it is in the interests of the UK Government, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people that the legal boundaries are properly dealt with. I try to do that as best I can.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Legal Advice (Debt)

Siobhain McDonagh: What steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to increase the availability of legal advice on debt.

Rosie Winterton: Assisting vulnerable individuals and families on debt issues is one of the key priorities for the community legal service. Through the work of more than 200 community legal service partnerships and with the support of initiatives such as the partnership innovation budget and the Legal Services Commission's methods of delivery pilots, we are devising new ways of delivering front-line debt advice services to local communities.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Does she agree that some of the most intractable problems that hon. Members meet at our advice surgeries relate to debt owed by severely disadvantaged people? Such debt is often multiple and is owed by people who not only have limited incomes, but do not have the access to mainstream credit facilities that many of us enjoy. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a serious role for organisations that form part of the legal service partnerships, such as the Wandsworth and Merton law centre and the Merton money advice service, to which I often refer people? Those bodies need to be well known and easily accessible, and people need to have confidence in them. Only too often, people's response to debt problems is to stick their heads in the sand and not deal with them. What are the Government doing to involve such organisations in improving the services that are provided?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that issue. In particular, I wish to praise the work of the Wandsworth and Merton law centre, not least because of the presence of Bob Nightingale, who chairs the Law Centres Federation. My Department produced a pamphlet with the Law Centres Federation that highlighted not only debt problems but the fact that people who have such problems may also face housing and social security problems—a spiral of decline that can lead to social exclusion. The way of getting out of that is to ensure that good legal services are available. Through the community legal service partnerships, we want to work with organisations such as law centres and others to ensure that we improve the availability of that advice.

John Bercow: Given that in the last Parliament, the Government legislated to establish the principle of the levy of interest in cases of late payment of commercial debt and that, periodically, large numbers of citizens in this country fall into debt precisely because of late payment by Government agencies of benefits or other entitlements, does the hon. Lady concede that, in principle, there is a compelling case for establishing, as a matter of course, that when the Government have erred and are late in paying people their dues, they should pay them not merely the sum, but interest on top of it?

Rosie Winterton: That matter has been looked into not only by this Government but by previous Governments. I rather think that responsibility for it lies with the Department of Trade and Industry, but I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are passed on.

Karen Buck: Law centres and citizens advice bureaux play a vital role in assisting people who get into debt and face financial exclusion, yet for the first quarter of this year, I spent much of my time fending off the possible closure of my two law centres. Only with the assistance of the Association of London Government were we able to pull those centres back from the brink. Even so, the Association of London Government does not have sufficient funds to ensure that the whole of London has adequate financial advice services.
	Has my hon. Friend discussed with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister whether the "futurebuilders" programme offers us an opportunity to resource voluntary organisations and law centres in providing financial advice and debt counselling across London and the country as a whole?

Rosie Winterton: I am aware of the work that my hon. Friend has put in on behalf of her local law centres, which she has raised with me before. Overall, contract funding for law centres from the Legal Services Commission has risen. She makes an important point about "futurebuilders". Some £125 million is available over the next three years to assist the voluntary and community sector in improving service delivery. Most of that money is for capital expenditure, but in view of my hon. Friend's comments I shall consider whether there are ways in which we can assist law centres, and let her know the outcome.

Magistrates Courts

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the magistracy to discuss recent court closures.

Yvette Cooper: Magistrates courts closures are a matter for local magistrates courts committees. Where there are appeals, I am always happy to meet representatives of the local magistracy before taking any decision. I have received no requests to meet magistrates about courts that have already closed.

Henry Bellingham: A few years ago, there were active magistrates courts in my constituency at Fakenham and Hunstanton, but they are now being concentrated in King's Lynn. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important for local justice to be seen to be done, and that for that to happen courts need to be close to the community? Surely, at a time when there is a need to restrain and control the increasing numbers of hooligans who are terrorising communities, there should be no further closures of magistrates courts.

Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is for local magistrates courts committees to take decisions about the courts estate. They have always done so, under previous Governments and under this Government. In the last year of his party's Government, there were 21 court closures; last year, there were six. It is right that magistrates courts committees should take decisions on the basis of a wide range of issues, including not only geographical access, but disability access, the availability of appropriate facilities for victims, and the state of the courtrooms.

David Heath: Is it not the case that there is a continuing shrinkage not only of the number of local courts, but of the number of lay magistrates to serve in them? Several schemes for the closure of local magistrates courts are in abeyance, awaiting the outcome of the Courts Bill that is passing through Parliament. If the Government are successful in getting that Bill through Parliament, will the Minister give an undertaking that she will make it Government policy to maintain local, and particularly rural, magistrates courts; and will she give instructions to that effect to Her Majesty's inspectorate of courts administration, which is established by the Bill, so that it can inspect for locality and ease of access for those who need to use the courts?

Yvette Cooper: It is important that decisions about local courts be taken in local areas. It is important not only to weigh up local needs, but to consider the facilities that are available for victims and other factors. As the hon. Gentleman will know, under the current arrangements appeals come to Ministers, and I recently overturned a decision to close Kingston courtrooms. I will always take decisions on the merits of the case. For example, unified administration offers the opportunity for the Court Service and magistrates courts to work together, which may increase the viability of courthouses in certain areas that are able to share facilities, but do not do so.

David Taylor: The Magistrates Association, of which I am a member, welcomes the recent Government amendment to the Courts Bill, which will require direct consultation with local benches on court reorganisation and other matters. Does the Minister believe that that will slow the steady flow of courthouse closures; and can she update the House on the continuing struggle between her Department and the abolitionist Home Office, which seems to dream of low-cost courthouses in remote regional locations that are utterly detached from the communities that they serve?

Yvette Cooper: In fact, I can update my hon. Friend on the fact that the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office have been working together on proposals around community justice centres, which are outlined in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. It is important that local communities feel that they have a strong stake in the local criminal justice system and the courts in their area. He is right that we have tabled an amendment to the Courts Bill to require consultation with magistrates. I am aware from discussing the small number of appeals that have come to me about magistrates courts closures that the local bench often makes representations, even though the magistrates courts committee and the committee of magistrates in that area have, in theory, made the decision.

William Cash: The Parliamentary Secretary speaks about working together. Does she accept that that has resulted in a staggering 96 magistrates courts closures throughout England and Wales since 1997, with more expected? Home Office statistics reveal that public confidence in the manner in which we deal with the criminal justice system has plummeted under the Government. Against the clear backdrop of threat to local justice under the Lord Chancellor's regime as more and more magistrates courts, many in rural areas, are shut, how does the Parliamentary Secretary propose to shore up faltering confidence in the system?

Yvette Cooper: Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. He should consider history. I know that he enjoys discrediting the history of Conservative Governments, but his previous party—[Hon. Members: "What?"] That was a Freudian slip. In the last year his party was in government, three times as many courts closed as under this Government last year. Rural court closures in the last year of the Tory Government included Hornsea, Howden, Market Weighton, Cheadle, Biddulph, Kidsgrove and so on. Between 1993 and 1996—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Yvette Cooper: There were 34 appeals against—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that when I stand, the lady sits. It is as simple as that.

Ethnic Minority Families

Kali Mountford: What assistance the Department is giving to support family and personal relationships in ethnic minority communities.

Rosie Winterton: This year, the Department made available £5 million to the marriage and relationship support grant programme. Out of the total grant programme, £800,000 is being spent on work that directly supports family and personal relationships in ethnic minority communities.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and for the close attention that she pays to the issue. She knows that conferences have been held throughout the country, including at the Kirklees domestic violence forum in my area in Huddersfield and in the House last week, when the all-party groups on domestic violence and on children met. At that meeting, the point was again made that ethnic minority women are much less likely to come forward for help, despite their being at least as likely to experience problems. What can my hon. Friend do to help local groups that want to support women in their communities, create new groups and help people through the grant system, which they currently find difficult?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to ask how we can improve access to the grant fund process. Every year, the Department, through application forms and feedback forms, looks for ways in which to ease the process. I would be more than happy to hear about any difficulties that specific groups, especially from ethnic minorities, have experienced, and about examples of how we can improve the system. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the fact that many people from ethnic minorities will not gain access to all the necessary information on, for example, remedies for domestic violence. We are considering a series of issues and methods of improving matters. Not least, we have translated into many different languages a guide that we recently produced about legal remedies for victims of domestic violence.

Gary Streeter: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that support for family support groups, in focus and funding, does not sit comfortably with the Department's overall functions, and that it is not well done? Is it not time the Government modernised the entire procedure for support for ethnic minority families, and more widely, moved it to a Department that is primarily focused on supporting families in this country and ensuring that the support is properly given?

Rosie Winterton: I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the delivery of service is poor. I think that, in terms of the number of people who are given adult relationship support, our record is impressive. The hon. Gentleman had a point, however, in saying that our support should be tailored to support for other things such as parenting. I assure him that I work closely with other Departments, particularly the Home Office, to ensure that happens.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Sitting Hours

Norman Baker: What plans he has to propose that the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons review the sitting hours of the House.

Ben Bradshaw: None at present.

Norman Baker: I understand why that is, given the commitment from the former Leader of the House. I voted for the change in the hours with some enthusiasm, but like, I suspect, many other Members I feel that they have not turned out quite as we anticipated then. I understand that the Minister may not wish to return completely to the old system, and I would not support that, but will he consider, for example, returning to a 2.30 pm rather than an 11.30 am start for question time, while retaining the present starting and finishing times?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would welcome any specific points that any Member may wish to make about how the current hours could be made to work better, but as my right hon. Friend said when the issue was last discussed during questions, he is in no hurry to revisit it, given that only six months ago the House expressed its settled will on a free vote.

Alice Mahon: May I join those who do not think that the new hours are working very well? Indeed, I think that they are working against the democratic process.
	May I also ask why, when I take junior schoolchildren on to the Terrace, I need a letter of permission from either Black Rod or the Serjeant at Arms to take a school photograph? That rule serves no useful purpose—and surely we, as elected Members, are as trustworthy as appointed Officers.

Ben Bradshaw: I imagine that the rule was established to protect Members from unwanted photography, but I will take up my hon. Friend's point because it has also affected me when I have entertained school parties here. I see no logical reason for such a formality.

Nicholas Soames: We must all hope that the hon. Gentleman is protected from unwanted photography at all times.
	Will the hon. Gentleman take careful note of the point made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), which reflects the extreme concern felt by many Members throughout the House about the dismal failure of the new arrangements? They have allowed the Government to get off scot free too often.

Ben Bradshaw: I do not accept that. Question time has become much more topical, and there are the new cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall. Taking the package as a whole, we see that the amount of scrutiny of Government has increased, not decreased, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister not accept that large tranches of very important legislation are leaving the House without being debated? There is not even the fallback of allowing some sections of the Finance Bill to be discussed up the passage in another place. Will the Minister urge the Leader of the House to review the position at a relatively early date? We want to know about experience with the new sitting times. Could we not use the time available on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings to ensure that the House does its proper duty, and that legislation is scrutinised adequately before going on the statute book?

Ben Bradshaw: As I told the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), the suggestion of a review is interesting. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—as a member of the Modernisation Committee and as Chairman of the Procedure Committee—has a specific proposal, he will wish to pursue it further. I think there is potential for use of Tuesday and Wednesday evenings to good effect, but to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the overall modernisation package means less scrutiny of Government—

Nicholas Winterton: indicated dissent.

Ben Bradshaw: It seems that I have impugned the hon. Gentleman. I am glad he accepts that scrutiny has become better rather than worse as a result of the package.

Cross-cutting Questions

Brian White: What assessment he has made of cross-cutting question sessions in Westminster Hall.

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend has as yet made no assessment of the cross-cutting question sessions in Westminster Hall, but I have attended most of them and my impression is that they are a useful innovation welcomed on both sides of the House, and that they are working well.

Brian White: The Minister says that the sessions are a useful innovation, but situations still arise in which Members table questions affecting a number of Departments, and those questions are referred to an inappropriate Department. Will my hon. Friend look at the issue of ordinary parliamentary questions on cross-cutting issues?

Ben Bradshaw: I will certainly look at that issue. Perhaps my hon. Friend has a specific example of a question that he has tabled which he feels has been directed to the incorrect Department. I would say to him that this issue is usually handled with great expertise and knowledge by the Table Office, but I will take up any specific examples that he has with the Table Office.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Broadcasting Rules

Chris Pond: What assessment the Commission has made of the effects of changes to the rules on broadcasting within the parliamentary estate.

Archy Kirkwood: The Commission is advised on these matters by the Administration Committee, which has approved a trial for this Session involving giving broadcasters access to live interview points in Central Lobby and the Committee Corridor, and to two areas in Portcullis House. The Committee will review the experiment at the end of this Session, taking into account all the views expressed.

Chris Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that response. As he will be aware, most of the coverage of this place by the media covers the theatre in this Chamber. As someone who is about to descend into—and who is looking forward to—several weeks on the Finance Bill Committee under the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and others, and who has served under his chairmanship in a Select Committee, I am keen that people should understand that a lot of work goes on Upstairs.
	Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding from the experiment so far that we are getting more coverage of Select Committees and Standing Committees, or is it just being used to give coverage to what the media might consider to be gossip in the Westminster village?

Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I believe that the experiment has improved public understanding and accessibility. Some 658 booked interviews have occurred during this Session; that is quite a lot. There are very strict rules under which these interviews must be conducted: they are supposed to be specific interviews with Members of the House on specific issues that are before the House. Those rules need to be carefully monitored and established, in order that we keep control of what I think is an important part of our attempt to explain—rightly, as the hon. Gentleman says—what goes on here. This also gives me the opportunity to say that the Committee would welcome any views, positive or negative, on how the experiment has worked to date.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Government Amendments

Graham Allen: If he will make a statement on the number of Government amendments made to each Government Bill passed by this House in this Session.

Ben Bradshaw: The number of Government amendments made to each Bill is not held centrally, but the information is available from the Official Report, and from the Votes and Proceedings or the Standing Committee proceedings.

Graham Allen: I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, which was one of the most excellent Standing Committees on a Bill that I have ever had the privilege to serve on. The Bill is now back before the House yesterday and today, and, unfortunately, about half of it is new to the House and to members of the Standing Committee—[Hon. Members: "Disgraceful!"]—although Opposition Members who are always crying wolf do not do us any favours when there is a genuine problem about parliamentary accountability.
	Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether he feels that pre-legislative scrutiny of all Bills will help the House to scrutinise Bills effectively and to reduce the unacceptably high number of Government amendments that are made to all Bills these days?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will probably know that we have already published four draft Bills this Session; we expect to publish several more in the next few weeks. I am confident that significantly more Bills will have been published in draft this Session than ever before. On my hon. Friend's specific point about the Criminal Justice Bill, I am please that his experience on the Standing Committee was a positive one, and I would remind the House that the Government have given an unprecedented amount of time to the Report stage in the Chamber—

Eric Forth: What?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, they have. No previous Bill has had three full six-and-a-half-hour days on Report on the Floor of the House.

Eric Forth: Today's running order for the Criminal Justice Bill—by the way, it carries the words, "By Order of the Speaker", although that should read, "By Order of the Government", if I may say so, to protect you, Mr. Speaker, and your impartiality—shows, by my calculation, that the Government are allowing the House of Commons two and a half hours to consider 16 new clauses and more than 30 amendments, an hour and a half to consider three new clauses and more than 100 amendments, and a further hour and a half to consider four new clauses, one schedule and one amendment.
	How on earth do the Government expect the House to discharge its responsibility for proper scrutiny of legislation when they are imposing such a timetable on our deliberations? Are not the Government yet again trampling gratuitously all over the House of Commons and denying Members of Parliament the opportunity to discharge our responsibility to our voters by properly scrutinising legislation? When is the Minister going to do something about it?

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman's fake outrage might carry more credibility if the Opposition had used the full six and a half hours that we gave them yesterday. They did not; the business ended early.

David Heath: I am dumbfounded by that comment from the Minister. The fact remains that nearly 500 amendments and 28 new clauses have been tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill, dealing with the most crucial issues of life and liberty. The Government have effectively introduced a new Criminal Justice Bill on Report, so should there not be a process whereby the Bill is automatically referred back to a Standing Committee to receive proper consideration before going to another place, which, I might remind the Minister, is not elected and therefore does not have the same credentials as this House to examine those essential issues?

Ben Bradshaw: Many of the changes to that Bill came out of the 32 Standing Committee sittings to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred. [Interruption.] Yes, they did. Others have been introduced as a result of legal necessity, because of judgments in the courts outside this place. Would the hon. Gentleman like to suggest which other important measures, such as those on getting to grips with the scandal of killer drivers who get off with lenient sentences or the problem of firearms, his party does not want on the statute book?

Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Minister believe that two and a half hours is adequate for talking about life sentencing, road traffic offences and firearms offences? Is it sufficient for the House of Commons? Will he assure us that, if the House of Commons gets that time, the House of Lords will get something similar?

Ben Bradshaw: The Opposition did not use their full allocation of time yesterday when we were debating the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman's false outrage would be more credible if they had. As I said in answer to an earlier question, no previous Government allowed nearly 20 hours on Report on the Floor of the House for any Bill. This is unprecedented.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Child Care

Bill Wiggin: If he will bring forward proposals to increase child care provision in the House of Commons.

Archy Kirkwood: The House provides help with child care through a child care voucher scheme for staff of the House, and also makes places available in a subsidised holiday play scheme for children of school age during the summer recess. This is open to children of Members, their staff, and staff of the House. The Administration Committee, however, is reviewing options for the possible extension of child care provision on the parliamentary estate and off site. The Commission expects to receive the Committee's findings before the summer recess.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I am curious as to whether the Commission has considered the use of allowances to pay for such child care. Could Members do that?

Archy Kirkwood: I understand that Members can use allowances for child care for members of their staff, but they cannot do so for their own children. If the hon. Gentleman has any other suggestions to make about such matters, it would be helpful for the Administration Committee to have access to his views so that they can be taken into account in the finalisation of the review before the report comes to the Commission.

John Bercow: What objection is there to the establishment and maintenance of a crèche?

Archy Kirkwood: There are constraints on the House. There is no space available for the proper provision of child care facilities on site or immediately off it. However, phase 2 of our review of space is being undertaken by the House authorities, and I confidently expect that the provision of such accommodation for child care facilities can be taken account of in the review.

Modernisation

Nicholas Winterton: What recent representations he has received on the modernisation of the House of Commons.
	I am grateful to be called again, Mr. Speaker. May I—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary should reply first.

Ben Bradshaw: That is what happens when one gets two bites of the cherry. In the past month, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has received four letters on modernisation of the House of Commons, one of which was from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Modernisation issues have also been raised with my right hon. Friend in informal conversations in the House and elsewhere, including during meetings of the Modernisation Committee, of which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is a member.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that reply, but bearing in mind the Minister's response to earlier questions relating to the Criminal Justice Bill and the huge number of additional clauses and amendments introduced by the Government, a very good case clearly exists for the House's finding additional time. Is it not sensible that the Modernisation Committee should give early consideration to this matter, to ensure that Parliament can do its proper job of adequately and fully scrutinising legislation that is of critical interest not only to this House, but to the people outside? I shall certainly use my good offices as a member of that Committee and as Chairman of the Procedure Committee to ensure that that happens.

Ben Bradshaw: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Modernisation Committee, will use his position on it to make that very point.

Primary School Tests and Targets

Damian Green: (Urgent Question): Will the Secretary of State make a statement about the changes to the primary school tests and targets that he has announced this morning?

Charles Clarke: I have published a document today, "Excellence and Enjoyment—A Strategy for Primary Schools", that sets out the Government's approach to primary education, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. It outlines an approach that joins high standards through a varied, rich and exciting curriculum with high standards of excellence and achievement through testing, targeting and tables.
	We support the testing regime that we have established. We believe that tests mean that teachers and parents can track the progress of every single child. They help to identify those pupils who need extra support, as well as those who need to be stretched. Targets show what we need to achieve, and provide clear focus and an important means of measuring progress and improvement. Every organisation that wishes to succeed sets itself goals and targets, and we confirm that approach in our document. We believe it important to maintain the regime of performance tables, which gives information to parents in a way that enables them to use the information and make choices about schools.
	Following our conferences of primary head teachers, we have taken a number of the sensible suggestions made by them to modify the application of some of these principles. Four points in particular should be noted. First, in future the target-setting process will begin with schools themselves for key stage 2, and local education authority targets will be set afterwards. Schools will set targets based on what they know about individual children's abilities, but also on high aspirations for the value that the schools themselves can add. We want schools to aim to add more value each year, and to look at the performance of other schools in similar circumstances.
	Secondly, I have listened to concerns about testing and key stage 1. I believe that robust assessment is a vital learning and teaching tool, and that most teachers support that strongly. I do not accept that the sort of tests and tasks that children are set at key stage 1 are too stressful for them to do, but we will look at the way in which the tests and tasks are used, and we will trial an approach in which tests and tasks underpin teacher assessment, rather than being reported separately.
	Thirdly, I have listened to concerns about the reporting of the achievements of children with special educational needs. We will consult to establish precisely how we should consider modification of our approach to deal with those needs. Finally, we are prepared to consider ways in which schools' broader achievements than those measured purely through the tests can be better reflected in the performance tables.
	As well as outlining the changes that I have mentioned, the document that I have published today sets out how we will support schools in taking more control of their own improvement, and in providing children with a broad, rich curriculum, which we will support. I commend our statement to the House.

Damian Green: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which enables this House to do its proper work of scrutiny.
	The Secretary of State launched this morning what he calls a new primary schools strategy. I welcome this tacit admission that the Government's previous complacency about standards in primary schools has been completely misplaced. Just as his Department has caused uncertainty and demoralisation in secondary schools and among university students, so it has signally failed even to meet its own targets on primary school standards. Does he accept that the strategy does nothing to deal with the key issues affecting schools at the moment? Will he admit that it will have no impact on the school funding crisis that his Department has created, and will be of no comfort to head teachers faced with budget cuts? It is significant that, as he introduces the strategy for primary schools, thousands of the assistants whom he must rely on to implement it face redundancy because of the funding crisis. If he talks, as he did this morning, about more skilled adults in the classroom, what does he say to teachers and teaching assistants facing redundancy?
	A signal of the Secretary of State's problems—indeed, it is always a symbol of a Secretary of State in trouble—is the fact that in his tour of the media this morning he consistently tried to misrepresent our policies. He has been saying, on the basis of my speech to the National Union of Teachers—I know he has read it because he keeps quoting from it—that we would abolish the tests. He knows that we are committed to testing—but not to the arbitrary targets that he insists on setting schools. I know that he would not wish to mislead the House, even though he wishes to mislead the media, so perhaps he will take the opportunity to set the record straight. The shift in his position on testing and the use of targets is breathtaking. Only last month, he told the conference of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers:
	"The tests are here to stay, and so are the targets".
	Today, he is changing the testing regime and abandoning one of his own targets. Is he genuinely moving towards abolishing the destructive regime of national target setting that has caused so many problems in schools? If so, I welcome his first tentative step towards our policies. However, given the problems that the targets created for his predecessor, I can understand why he would want to abandon them. If he is genuinely interested in scrapping these national targets, will he now confirm that he will abandon all of them—for secondary schools, colleges, and the 50 per cent. university admissions target—because they have had such a destructive effect on our education system?
	I suspect, however, that today's announcement is merely a convenient way for the Government to shift responsibility for their own failures. Will the Secretary of State admit that his Department has failed to meet the targets that it set for literacy and numeracy among 11-year-olds, meaning that every fourth child leaves primary school unable to read, write or count properly? Will he also admit that his use this morning of the language of autonomy for schools is merely a hollow vehicle for shifting the blame, as his Department has admitted that it will fail to hit those targets? There will be no extra autonomy for schools that have already set local targets because the national target will still exist—it will just be deferred to 2006, conveniently after the next general election.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the real problems for schools lie in his Department's addiction to a regime of central command and control that sends teachers up to 20 pages of paperwork every school day, instructing them how to do their job? When he said this morning that primary education should be magical, did he not realise that that would be greeted with hollow laughter in hard-pressed staffrooms throughout the country?
	This is not a new strategy. It is a smokescreen designed to hide the central fact that the Government are failing in primary schools, just as they are failing in secondary schools and our universities. With every week that passes, it becomes clearer that the Secretary of State is presiding over a Department in disarray, letting down hard-working teachers as well as pupils and parents. Unless and until the Government stop interfering and start trusting professionals while giving parents real choice, his policies will continue to fail. Will he reverse those policies, because if he does not the failures of the present will be repeated in future and he will let down further generations of schoolchildren, teachers and parents?

Charles Clarke: Let us start with the facts—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear them, but, compared with 1998, about 84,000 more 11-year-olds are achieving the expected level for their age in maths, and about 60,000 more in English. The percentage of schools achieving below 65 per cent. in English and maths has been halved since 1998. The percentage of schools achieving 80 per cent. or more in English and maths has more than doubled since 1998. The lowest achieving local education authority is now performing at about the level of the average LEA of five years ago. The international test—the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study test—demonstrates that England's primary school pupils are the third most able readers in the world, behind Sweden and the Netherlands, and that England is the most successful English-speaking country in literacy among 10-year-olds. We have a record to be proud of, which is why we will maintain the tests and targeting regime that we have established, as they have achieved so much.
	Why? Because we know that, despite the advantages, more than one in four pupils are still leaving primary schools without achieving the expected level in English and maths. That is not good enough and it must improve. We also know from the different levels of free school meal provision, that there is a massive range of achievement—not just between suburbs and inner cities—at SATs level 4 at key stage 2.
	We need a test regime and a targeting regime. That is the main contrast with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who told his new friends in the National Union of Teachers that he was announcing—I quote his words, as he wanted me to do so—"a bonfire of targets". He went on to say that he wanted to scrap the targets. Both the key stage 2 targets would be abolished and the key stage 3 targets would go, too. He said that he would get rid of the target for English and maths for 12-year-olds and GCSE targets. That amounts to a clear set of policies to abandon children who are not achieving, whereas it is our aim to help and support them in every possible way.
	Why? Simply because 70 per cent. of pupils who achieved level 4 at key stage 2 went on to get five or more good GCSEs, and of those pupils who did not reach level 4 in 1997, only 12 per cent. achieved five good GCSEs. That reveals a serious failure, which, under the previous Conservative Government, led to 7 million to 8 million adults in this country being unable to read and write at the essential levels that we need. We are not going to repeat that, and I hope that the House will decide not to go down the path recommended by the hon. Member for Ashford.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State knows that I do not often rush to be the first to praise him for the documents that he produces, but this morning's discussion paper "Excellence and Enjoyment" is very good. In view of the inheritance bequeathed to the Labour Government in 1997—with appalling levels of achievement in literacy, numeracy and GCSEs—many of us understand why a strict regime of testing and targets was necessary. We have now reached a time for softening the approach, as demanded by schools, teachers and parents. Speaking personally, rather than as Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, I welcome the softening of the approach and the manner in which the Secretary of State has listened to so many of the articulate voices in the education sector.

Charles Clarke: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks and I pay tribute to the way in which he, unlike some Conservative Members, has studied the issues and come to a clear view of them. It is critically important to maintain a national regime of tests, targets and tables. However, it is also critically important to implement them in a way that gives possession of the system to teachers and governing bodies in primary schools throughout the country. That is what our proposals are all about and that is what I believe they will achieve.

Phil Willis: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting the urgent question today. It is appalling that, on such a significant issue for the entire primary sector, an urgent question is necessary before we can bring the Secretary of State before the House to respond.
	Liberal Democrat Members are constantly fed up of hearing successive Secretaries of State say that their targeting and testing regime is responsible for improving the quality of education in our schools. It is the work of our teachers, not the Secretary of State's targets, that has achieved that. If the Secretary of State spoke to teachers—including those in the National Union of Teachers, which he boycotted last Easter—they would tell him that the one thing that prevents them from raising standards even higher in our schools is his regime of narrow targets and testing.
	Having said all that, we welcome the partial U-turn that the Secretary of State has made today. In lifting the pressure of tests on seven-year-olds, he has gone some way towards meeting our requirements. Does he agree that the key issue for parents—not for the Secretary of State—is the progress of their children? What they want is testing that is geared towards their children, to determine their needs. By retaining the element of central testing, the Secretary of State will remove opportunities for schools to achieve what parents want. How does he reconcile allowing schools to set their own targets for literacy and numeracy at key stage 2, while retaining a national target for other stages? That is contradictory. Does he accept that we have seen progress in science, at key stage 2—for which no targets have ever been set—rocket forward faster than either literacy or numeracy?
	We also welcome the Secretary of State's comments about special educational needs. The tragedy is not the inclusion of children with SEN in the league tables, but the damage that is done to individual children with SEN and their learning. Regimenting those children into a target and test regime often does enormous damage to their learning opportunities, and I hope that the Secretary of State will address that.

Charles Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman did listen to teachers in primary schools, he would hear them say that the numeracy and literacy strategy has been a tremendous success that they welcome and applaud. That is why we have today announced the extension of that approach to subjects other than mathematics and English. The hon. Gentleman would also hear teachers say that despite initial reservations about the operation of Ofsted, it has positively improved the provision of good quality schools throughout the country and has dealt with problems where they have occurred.
	We have listened to teachers on these proposals. On the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raises, I completely agree that testing has to be geared to the needs of every individual child, but parents want to have some sense that their children at the age of 11—the end of key stage 2—are achieving certain basic national standards in maths, English and science. We need a national testing regime to ensure that parents know what the situation is.
	The statement contains important news about our targeting approach. We believe that targets will be more effective if they are owned, controlled and determined by schools locally, and then aggregated. However, we would be failing in our responsibility as a Government if we did not seek to set national targets to raise the quality of English and maths at all levels throughout the school system. That is important, and it is genuinely extraordinary that some of the Opposition parties do not identify with such targets.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned special educational needs. We will consider that issue to meet precisely the point that he made. We need to ensure that the regime considers the specific needs of every child with special needs, and I believe that we can do that very effectively.

David Borrow: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The big improvement in primary education is a result of the extra resources that the Government have put in and the professionalism of primary school teachers and head teachers. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in implementing the changes that he has proposed today the Government will have a lighter touch on regulation and perhaps show more faith in the professionalism of teachers in primary schools, with less need for the rigid regime that, to some extent, has begun to reduce some of the flair they can show?

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requests. I am the first to say that the people who make the changes happen are the teachers and the teaching profession, but others support them. For example, they are supported by classroom assistants; by the provision of more teachers, as has happened; by the production of good quality material, such as the numeracy and literacy strategy, which we will now extend to other areas; and by the provision of good quality data about students that enables teachers to focus specifically on the needs of each student. Each of those initiatives requires support, so while I pay tribute to the teaching profession, and the individual professionalism of teachers, I also confirm that we will continue to support that professionalism in a variety of ways, rather than casting teachers on the waves and telling them to get on with it.

Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State will forgive all of us for considering that he has created an impression of a certain degree of incoherence and panic. Last week's debate on school funding proved to many of us that the funding provided by his Department, and not by LEAs, was seriously lacking. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has been dragged here to make this statement, which shows that the Government's policies have failed. Will he explain why teachers, teaching assistants and school governors should believe that his current policy this week will be in place in two or three months? What credibility does his policy have with teachers?

Charles Clarke: The process that has led to the publication of this document is precisely the opposite of that described by the hon. Gentleman. As with our documents on secondary education and education in London, we identified some months ago what we needed to do with this document. We identified that we needed to set out a clear strategy for our approach, to consult the professionals—which is why we consulted more than 2,000 primary school head teachers—to listen to what those professionals told us and to see whether we could improve our policy. The final step was to publish the document for public debate.
	That is precisely what we have done. The policy will not be changed according to any time scale of the sort that the hon. Gentleman might suggest. It is in fact a tribute to our approach that we have published the document after considerable discussion and debate, and after paying considerable attention to the key issues that need to be addressed. The hon. Gentleman would do better to give the Department credit for that, instead of trying to score a cheap and inaccurate point.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the new strategy will help three primary schools in my constituency, where 95 per cent. of the children enter without being able to speak a word of English, and without having heard much English? Key stage 1 is therefore a very difficult exam for them, and the staff, to cope with. It does not really reflect the value added gained by staff and children in the period that it covers.

Charles Clarke: I very much respect my hon. Friend's commitment to fighting for the schools in question. She and I have discussed these matters on other occasions. The proposal made today will meet her concern precisely, as it will ensure that it will be teachers' rounded assessments of children entering school, such as those to whom she referred, that will form the report to parents and the public as to what has been achieved. That report will take into account the national SATs at key stage 1, but no more than that. The result will not be that two different scores are published side by side, as it were: one account will be produced by the teacher, and it will take account of the problem described by my hon. Friend. I believe that it will help teachers in her constituency properly to look after the needs of the children whom she has described in a coherent and comprehensive way.

Angela Browning: The column on page 7 of the document entitled "Realising the Vision" states:
	"Schools need stable and predictable funding arrangements."
	Primary schools in my very rural constituency created stability this year by cutting their budgets to keep teachers and classroom assistants. Next year, however, the situation will be very unpredictable, and schools do not know whether they will be able to retain staff. What is the Secretary of State going to do about that?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Lady must not have been in the House last Thursday, when this matter was discussed at some length in an Opposition Supply day debate. I am sorry that she was unable to participate in that debate. I agree with her to the extent that it is right that there needs to be certainty about funding next year, 2004-05. I set out last Thursday a clear set of ways in which that will be achieved. However, I must say that the uncertainty caused by Opposition talk of 20 per cent. cuts in education is extremely destabilising for schools in the hon. Lady's constituency.

Colin Burgon: Having spoken to several primary school head teachers this morning, may I pass on to my right hon. Friend their congratulations—[Laughter.] This comes from the chalk face, and it is true. May I pass on those teachers' congratulations that my right hon. Friend has listened to teachers on this matter? Does he agree that the changes at key stage 1 are not causing a decline in standards, as teacher assessment is increasingly accurate because teachers constantly review the effectiveness of their work? Is not the change a real vote of confidence in teachers, allowing them to improve standards in a broader and wider curriculum?

Charles Clarke: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. I believe that the experience of primary teachers in his constituency will be widely shared, including by their colleagues in the constituencies of Opposition Members. However, I want to reinforce a key point made by my hon. Friend. One reason why we felt able to take the steps on key stage 1 that we have taken is the increasing evidence that teacher assessment at key stage 1 is close to the SATs assessment. We can therefore have confidence in the professionalism of teachers to make the assessment in that way, as long as it is underpinned by the national SATs results. My hon. Friend is right to say that the change is a sign of our confidence in teachers. It is precisely because of that confidence that we can make the announcements that we have made today.

Vincent Cable: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent statement by Britain's leading performance musicians that the current regime of testing, tables and targets is driving subjects such as music out of the curriculum, with very damaging long-term consequences? The same is true of sport. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to rebalance the primary sector's priorities?

Charles Clarke: I am aware of the reported remarks of the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. I am having a meeting with those people later today for an in-person discussion about those matters, but the document is specifically about encouraging and improving the quality of the curriculum in primary education in respect of music, sport, the arts and modern foreign languages. All those subjects need more Government support in terms of materials for teachers, and a greater focus through existing work force agreements. We are therefore trying to meet the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman, and the document is major step forward in that respect.

Roger Casale: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? I have seen in my constituency that the testing regime has driven up standards, but it must also be right to review the regime with the benefit of hindsight to see how we can make it operate better in terms of meeting our targets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is right that we send a message to teachers that we treat and view them as professionals, setting clear targets is a very important way for parents, as well as the Secretary of State, to hold teachers and head teachers to account?

Charles Clarke: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am grateful for his comments. That is why I find so disgraceful the suggestion made in some quarters that targets should be abandoned. Data from free school meal provision show very wide variations at each level in the number of children reaching SATs 4 at key stage 2. If we could only achieve the position where children in the bottom half of achievement got up to the level of median attainment at each of those levels, we would be well past the 85 per cent. target that we have set nationally. Our target is to improve all primary schools so that they can maximise their performance. This document commits us to that target. The Opposition are totally uncommitted to improving our schools.

Andrew Turner: Good schools, such as Summerfield primary school in my constituency, manage to provide a breadth of curriculum despite testing, targets and tables, as I found when I attended that school's May day celebrations. Why is the Minister for School Standards—who so ably but ill advisedly erected this edifice in a previous life—distancing himself from the Secretary of State by skulking out of shot at the far end of the Treasury Bench?

Charles Clarke: I am glad to say that all my colleagues are very proud to be in shot. We may not have generally commendable physiques, but we are very proud of what we achieve. I know that in the Isle of Wight the idea that the Conservative party is the party of the poor has already taken root. In that context, I am delighted that, as part of the new ideological shift, the hon. Gentleman was present at the May day celebrations to deal with the situation. However, I hope that he will agree that, in any school in his constituency, there must be room for improvement and for getting more children to read and write properly at the age of 11. He ought to be committing himself to that goal, as the Government are doing.

Chris Pond: I very much welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is showing extra confidence in the professionalism of teachers. However, will he say a little more about the importance of our strategy on tests and targets, especially in schools in poorer areas? An example of that is Northcourt primary school in my constituency, which, although it is the most improved school in Kent, is threatened with closure by the Conservative-controlled county council.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend puts his finger on a critical point; the people who most gain from our testing and targeting regime are children in the poorest communities and from the poorest backgrounds. Our obligation is to drive standards up for them, even more than for everybody else. In the past, the Conservatives have not bothered about those people. That is their privilege. However, we, as a party, are going to focus on ensuring that the poorest people get the best opportunities.

Martin Smyth: Has the Secretary of State consulted his colleague in Northern Ireland, where there is not quite the same scrutiny on education? I welcome his comments on statementing, as we often seem to fail in that regard. Does he agree that in areas of need there may be a role for after-school homework clubs to help children? Experienced adults could help them at home or in the community rather than in the classroom.

Charles Clarke: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a great deal in the document about extended schools, including after-school clubs, breakfast clubs, weekend and holiday activities and so on, for exactly the reason indicated by the hon. Gentleman. The more we can ensure that children in some of the worst-off communities have opportunities for engaging and learning, the better will be their prospects in the future.

Andrew Robathan: Following this change of policy by the Secretary of State, will he reconsider another decision, namely his extraordinary refusal to see a cross-party delegation of MPs from Leicestershire to discuss primary schools in the county and their funding? Better still, will he visit primary schools in Leicestershire, especially Cosby primary school and John Wycliffe primary school, as both schools, according to a report in the Leicester Mercury, are apparently having to make two teachers redundant? Perhaps he will listen to the primary school head teachers who are having to make cuts and the 24 teachers who face the axe. Perhaps then he will be able to tell the House how he has been listening to teachers.

Charles Clarke: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not able to be in the Chamber last Thursday for the debate called by the Conservatives on that matter. Had he been present, he would have heard us discuss that question in great detail. Many Members raised constituency questions on the issue. We set out a clear strategy to deal with the precise issues that he mentioned.

Caroline Flint: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that, in considering more flexibility, more self-regulation and more local self-targeting, we continue to be aware that we introduced targeting because so many of our children did not meet the aspirations that we wanted for them as they go through our school system? Many Members may have the wherewithal and the confidence to be happy with their own evaluation of their child's progress, but many parents throughout the country do not have that confidence. They rely on the state and the schools for testing and targeting to ensure that their children get a decent education.

Charles Clarke: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. She is correct in every respect and I can give her the assurance she seeks.
	What I find so depressing about the position of the Conservatives is that they have abandoned ambition and aspiration for children throughout the whole country, especially for poorer children. We do not do that; we say that everybody can achieve and that investment needs to go in at the primary point. The Government have an obligation to do what we can to help teachers and to strengthen their professionalism. These proposals are intended to achieve just that.

Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State agree that his earlier statement about the need for a broad, rich curriculum and his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on music and sport are an admission that, after six years of a Labour Government, those aspects have been squeezed out of primary schools—otherwise there would have been no need to take this line? Will he confirm that 75 per cent. of our primary school children are not receiving even the minimum of two hours physical education a week, with the result that our youngsters are less fit than ever and obesity is rising to record levels?

Charles Clarke: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, although I know that his obsession with Colchester United—the reason for which escapes me—can sometimes blind him to the general situation. However, I make the serious acknowledgement that we need to do far more about sport in schools, far more about music in schools, far more about art in schools and far more about modern foreign languages in schools. That is precisely what the document is trying to achieve.

Mark Hendrick: I commend the excellent work being undertaken in Preston primary schools, especially at Moor Nook community primary school, which has seen huge improvements as a result of the Government's policies. Will my right hon. Friend comment further on the improvements in schools where there are difficult socio-economic backgrounds?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I recently visited Preston to see some of the achievements there and the way in which creative projects, like the playing for success project with Preston North End football club, can help teachers with their professionalism in precisely the aspects that he describes.
	The choice is clear. There is our position, which is saying that we trust teachers, have confidence in them and want to support them, and that we want to set aspirations and do what we can to help; or there is the Opposition's position who say, "We don't care about ambition. We don't care about aspiration. We are not going to help and we are not going to move things forward." I prefer the Government's position for my hon. Friend's constituents.

Nick Gibb: The Secretary of State will be aware from the recent National Audit Office report that 23 per cent. of adults in Britain cannot read properly, compared to only 7 per cent. in Sweden. He will also be aware that in Switzerland, where synthetic phonics are used to teach reading, children learn to read in two terms, compared to between two and three years in this country. His document refers to strengthening phonics, but how does he intend to tackle the problems highlighted by Ofsted, that at key stage 1
	"teachers still do not give enough emphasis to the application of phonics"
	and that
	"there has not been enough improvement in the teaching of phonics in Years 3 and 4"?
	How does the Secretary of State intend practically to tackle those criticisms from Ofsted?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman raises entirely legitimate points. I have met delegations from those who are concerned about synthetic phonics, to see how we could move things forward. The Department has held a number of discussions involving various academic experts in the field to consider how we could improve the programme. Our commitment is to ensure that the literacy and numeracy strategies are based on the best international knowledge and I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman's points are legitimate parts of that discussion. I am not going to commit myself here and now to any change of approach on those matters, but only to ensuring that we listen to the best possible evidence before deciding precisely what to do.

Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outer estates of Nottingham, North are among some of the toughest educational environments in the United Kingdom, and that the combination of effective testing and clear literacy and numeracy programmes, allied to some heroic local head teachers and primary teachers, has raised standards immeasurably in that area? While bringing flexibility to testing, will my right hon. Friend none the less ensure that that clear framework is maintained so that, as he said earlier, the poorest children—those from the most educationally deprived backgrounds—can continue to aspire and to attain?

Charles Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his personal work in ensuring that such issues are raised; for example, sure start has made a major difference in his constituency. That type of address—the focus on raising standards, improving the quality of schools, bettering the condition of people going to school and providing proper support—will make a difference. The difference between us and the Conservatives is that we focus on that—they do not.

Gary Streeter: Why is the document not called "Nothing New Under the Sun"? The executive summary states that
	"in future the target-setting process will begin with schools setting their own targets for each child".
	Is that not precisely what good teachers and good schools have been doing for decades? Why has it taken the Secretary of State six years to catch up with a profession that he clearly does not trust?

Charles Clarke: The reason that the document is called "Excellence and Enjoyment" is that the whole primary education system should be about promoting those qualities. In many cases it is, but we have to spread that and take it forward, as the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge.
	As for nothing new under the sun, when I hear the posturing of Opposition Front-Bench Members, I can only agree.

Kevin Brennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the inquiry that the Public Administration Committee has been undertaking into government by targetry? Although we have not yet reported, the evidence that has come before the Committee overwhelmingly suggests, first, that targets are important and should be retained by the Government; and, secondly, that they should be more flexible and that more of them should be set locally. I thus commend the approach that my right hon. Friend has announced today.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expert opinion. The key question is exactly as he suggests: how do we ensure that targets are owned and possessed by those who have to carry them through? The principal reason for the changes that we have announced today is to try to promote that. We have received evidence—we have listened to primary heads—that the current regime does not give enough weight to the views and opinions of those actually in schools in setting targets as they have to do. I hope that the system that we are putting in place will meet the ambitions set out by my hon. Friend.

Bill Wiggin: I am very grateful to the House for opportunity to consider this urgent question because it is still not clear whether the Secretary of State has moved the goalposts, as it is unlikely that the Government will achieve the targets, or whether he is simply unable to deal with his job, like his predecessor.

Charles Clarke: The simple answer is that we have not moved the goalposts in any respect whatsoever. The national target that we have established for each of the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 is 85 per cent. We have said that very clearly all the way through. That remains our target, and it is what we seek to achieve and we will continue to press it. Again, I can say only that it contrasts starkly with the policy of the Conservative party, which wants no ambition or aspiration.

David Taylor: Of the 150 local education authorities in the United Kingdom, right at the very bottom of the league table for funding per primary school pupil is the county of Leicestershire. Can the Secretary of State explain how, with the new framework announced today, we can deliver premiership performance on third division funding? Does he accept that the devolved Administrations probably had it right in sticking with the key stage 2 measurements but abandoning the pernicious and counterproductive publication of league tables, which does nothing for schools in poorly funded authorities such as my own?

Charles Clarke: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. As I have tried to set out in my answers earlier today, it is important to have a test regime and a targeting regime, and it is also important to publish the data, so that parents can understand exactly what the situation is.

Henry Bellingham: When the right hon. Gentleman was appointed as Secretary of State, he said that Norfolk primary schools could look forward to a bright future—we are all very encouraged by that—but is he aware that Norfolk may well lose up to 90 teachers, with primary schools bearing the brunt, including Reffley, Fairstead and St. Edmunds county primary schools in my constituency? I was here last Thursday; I listened to the debate very carefully, and the right hon. Gentleman could not give Norfolk any real guarantee that there would be a way out of this funding crisis. Can he tell us today whether there is any real hope for Norfolk in this funding crisis?

Charles Clarke: I give the hon. Gentleman credit for being present during that debate, which was called by the Opposition, and, moreover, for participating in it and putting the points that he makes now. Unfortunately, I am not able to add to what I said last Thursday, but what I announced then will lead to a better situation for schools throughout the country.

John Bercow: Given that the reduction in primary school tests and targets urgently needs to be replicated in a reduction in the unprecedented paperwork burden on teachers, can the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House what his quantitative target for that reduction is and, if there is no such target, why on earth not?

Charles Clarke: We have a whole series of proposals in this area, where a great deal of measures have been taken. The quantitative material sent out to schools by my Department has been very substantially reduced in the past two years, as the data will show. I do not have the quantitative figures to hand, but I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with them.

Points of Order

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you and the Ministers concerned prior notice. You will have seen that, in today's Order Paper, notice is given that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a written ministerial statement about housing benefit. You will have been as surprised as I was to see in The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail this morning reports that set out the details of that statement and contain direct quotations from it by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, a press release containing full details of the announcement appeared on the Departmental website this morning, well before the statement had been deposited in the Library. Is it in order for Ministers to brief the press the day before and allow themselves to be quoted using exactly the same words as appear in the statement, so that the precise text of the statement is available publicly in the morning papers before it has been made to the House? Is that not a discourtesy to the House? Can you offer any guidance? What is to be done about such things?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. Written ministerial statements may be made at any time from 9.30 in the morning. It is of fundamental importance that they are not given to the press before they are made available to the House. In this instance, it appears that at least two newspapers had a copy of the departmental press release in time to print details this morning. Departments must not pre-empt the House in that way, and I look to Ministers to ensure that it does not happen again.

Malcolm Wicks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has made a very serious and fair point. I wish to offer my sincere apologies and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the fact that news of our announcement on housing benefit sanctions became public before Parliament had been informed. That was a genuine error, and I assure the House that there was no intention to be discourteous. We gave notice yesterday that we would make a written statement this morning to announce that we would issue a consultation document on those proposals. A press release was prepared with the intention that it would be sent out after the written statement had been issued. I very much regret that the press release was mistakenly issued last night. We take our obligations to Parliament very seriously indeed and normally—as I hope you will agree, Mr. Speaker—we observe the protocols of the House when we make such announcements. I can only say how sorry I am that that did not occur on this occasion.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not that long ago during questions in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office made the astonishing assertion—he made it not once but a number of times—that Her Majesty's Opposition had not taken up the full allocation of time under yesterday's very tight guillotine on business. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that column 798 of yesterday's Hansard not only shows beyond doubt that a Government Back Bencher was speaking when the time expired, but it says:
	"It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary".
	That was at 10.2 pm, which was the expiry of the time allowed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apologise to the House and to Her Majesty's Opposition for that error and that perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will consider re-running that part of Question Time, so that the hon. Gentleman can give accurate answers to the questions that we asked him.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The information given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office was clearly incorrect, as even a cursory glance at Hansard would reveal. However, in case there is any glimmer of doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind about our determination to pursue the arguments arising from the Criminal Justice Bill for as long as necessary, is there any opportunity, Mr. Speaker, even at this late stage, for the hon. Gentleman to table a manuscript programme motion that will extend the time available for debate this evening, so that we can properly consider the very many new clauses that the Government have tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill, without allowing them to pass to the other place without proper scrutiny?

Ben Bradshaw: Further to that point of order, the two hon. Gentlemen are both entirely right, and perhaps I can take this opportunity to apologise to them, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House. The debate on the Criminal Justice Bill did indeed go the full six and a half hours last night. In response to the last point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), may I say that it remains the case that three full days' debate on the Floor of the House on Report is unprecedented for such a Bill?

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that it is not on that matter; the Minister has apologised.

John Bercow: No it is not. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me and I seek your guidance. Further to your very welcome ruling on the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that relates to advance briefings and leaks—the latest in a series of welcome rulings on this matter—can you offer any reassurance to the House that, when breaches of this kind occur, they will as a matter of course result in a requirement for the Minister formally to apologise to the House? Most Members would greatly welcome what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say today, but if it were understood that a Minister would always be required formally to apologise at the Dispatch Box, such incidences probably would not occur anything like so frequently.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister came to apologise to the House, and in this instance, the matter has ended.

Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Professional Negligence Insurance)

Desmond Turner: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the holding of professional negligence insurance as a condition of registration to practise in medicine or dentistry.
	It is generally assumed that doctors and dentists are indemnified against professional negligence, both for their sake and the patient's. Indemnity insurance for professional negligence is a mandatory requirement for several professions, few of which are in a position to inflict as much damage to their clients as a negligent or incompetent doctor or dentist. Sadly, that is not the case, and serious consequences can flow from it.
	At present, staff employed by health service bodies are covered by the NHS indemnity scheme while they are providing services under the NHS. Private practitioners, however, are not necessarily covered by insurance. They may be members of the Medical Defence Union or Dental Defence Union and may have discretionary insurance cover, but it is not mandatory, and the provision of an indemnity insurance by the MDU is a recent development. About 40 per cent. of doctors in private practice and 70 per cent. of dentists may not have the contractual certainty of insurance and are thus exposed to the risk of being pursued in the courts for professional negligence. Their patients are equally at risk if they are unable to pay judgments that the courts may hand down.
	Such an example arose in my area. A dentist practising privately was sued for negligence because of the damage to one of his patient's teeth. It is estimated that it will cost £11,000 for further treatment to repair the damage so that he can use his teeth to eat. The court awarded £6,000 in damages and the costs were another £6,000, but the dentist declared himself bankrupt and has left the country without paying a penny. The solicitor who represented the patient has another 40 cases pending against the same dentist, and it is believed that about 1,000 patients have been similarly damaged by the same dentist. Clearly, he is an outstandingly bad example, and I do not suggest for a moment that that case is typical of medical practitioners. None the less, it illustrates what can happen.
	The sums involved in medical cases can of course be much larger, especially in obstetrics where the delivery of a baby with cerebral palsy can lead to court judgments of the order of £3.5 million to cover the cost of a lifetime's care for the child. The bill for claims in obstetric cases to the NHS currently runs into billions of pounds, and, unsurprisingly, independent midwives are virtually extinct. Clearly, the current situation in which insurance is discretionary is not acceptable. Insurance against damage to third parties is mandatory for motorists. Professional negligence insurance is mandatory for other professions and an overwhelming case exists for making it mandatory for health professionals.
	Clearly, the Government recognise that there is a problem, as the Health Act 1999 contains an enabling provision that would provide for mandatory insurance:
	"Regulations may make provision for the purposes of securing that, in prescribed circumstances, prescribed Part II practitioners hold approved indemnity cover."
	It continues:
	"The regulations may, in particular, make provision as to the consequences of a failure to hold approved indemnity cover, including provision—
	(a) for securing that a person is not added to any list unless he holds approved cover;
	(b) for the removal from a list prepared by a Health Authority of a Part II practitioner who does not within a prescribed period after the making of a request by the Health Authority . . . satisfy the Health Authority that he holds approved indemnity cover."
	In moving the clause in another place, the noble Lord Hunt, speaking for the Government, said:
	"At the moment neither doctors nor dentists are required legally to maintain professional indemnity cover. Although those employed in the NHS, for example in an NHS trust, are covered by NHS indemnity for general medical practitioners and high street dentists, we rely on the guidance of the regulatory bodies and the professional organisations. We consider that to be unsatisfactory."
	He went on to say:
	"This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to require Part II family health service practitioners—those are the professions providing general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services, or pharmaceutical services—to hold indemnity cover. I should say that the vast majority of those practitioners already act responsibly by arranging suitable indemnity cover for their work. By covering all, this amendment seeks to address the small minority who are not so responsible."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1999; Vol. 598, c. 550.]
	That was the Government position at the time of the Health Act 1999, but, sadly, the power has not been exercised. That is why I am seeking the leave of the House to bring in this Bill, the thrust of which is that in order to practice as a part II practitioner any health professional must hold a valid certificate of indemnity insurance, and that to practice without insurance would be an offence.
	I know that the Government are seized of the problem and are considering a system of no fault compensation to operate in the NHS, which would address the acute public sector, but insurance cover already exists for NHS staff and patients. My Bill would ensure that there is protection in place for both practitioners and the public, in the public sector and the private sector. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Desmond Turner, Mr. David Lepper, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Vera Baird and Mr. David Heath.

Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Professional Negligence Insurance)

Dr. Desmond Turner accordingly presented a Bill to require the holding of professional negligence insurance as a condition of registration to practise in medicine or dentistry: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 111]. Orders of the Day

Criminal Justice Bill
	 — 
	[3rd Alloted Day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Government New Clause 30
	 — 
	Determination of Minimum Term in Relation to Mandatory Life Sentence

'(1) This section applies where after the commencement of this section a court passes a life sentence in circumstances where the sentence is fixed by law.
	(2) The court must, unless it makes an order under subsection (4), order that the provisions of section 28(5) to (8) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43) (referred to in this Chapter as "the early release provisions") are to apply to the offender as soon as he has served the part of his sentence which is specified in the order.
	(3) The part of his sentence is to be such as the court considers appropriate taking into account—
	(a) the seriousness of the offence, or of the combination of the offence and any one or more offences associated with it, and
	(b) the effect of any direction which it would have given under section 222 (crediting periods of remand in custody) if it had sentenced him to a term of imprisonment.
	(4) If the offender was 21 or over when he committed the offence and the court is of the opinion that, because of the seriousness of the offence, or of the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, no order should be made under subsection (2), the court must order that the early release provisions are not to apply to the offender.
	(5) In considering under subsection (3) or (4) the seriousness of an offence (or of the combination of an offence and one or more offences associated with it), the court must have regard to—
	(a) the general principles set out in Schedule (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence), and
	(b) any guidelines relating to offences in general which are relevant to the case and are not incompatible with the provisions of Schedule (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence).
	(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence).'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 31—Duty to give reasons.
	Government new clause 32—Appeals.
	Government new clause 33—Review of minimum term on reference by Attorney General.
	Government new clause 34—Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales.
	Government new clause 35—Further provisions about references relating to transferred life prisoners.
	Government new clause 36—Duty to release certain life prisoners.
	Government new clause 37—Mandatory life sentences: transitional cases.
	Government new clause 38—Interpretation of Chapter.
	Government new clause 39—Increase in penalties for certain driving-related offences causing death—and amendment (a) thereto.
	Government new clause 46—Minimum sentence for certain firearms offences—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
	Government new clause 47—Certain firearms offences to be triable only on indictment.
	Government new clause 48—Power to sentence young offender to detention in respect of certain firearms offences: England and Wales.
	Government new clause 49—Power to sentence young offender to detention in respect of certain firearms offences: Scotland.
	Government new clause 50—Power by order to exclude application of minimum sentence to those under 18.
	Government new clause 51—Increase in penalty for offences relating to importation of exportation of certain firearms—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
	New clause 7—Prohibition on mandatory sentences.
	New clause 9—Penalty for causing death by dangerous driving.
	Government amendments Nos. 426 to 429, 223, 430, 224, 436 and 437, 228 and 229, 438 to 440 and 431.
	Government new clause 41—Mode of trial for certain firearms offences: transitory arrangements.
	Government amendments Nos. 325 to 330, 338, 342, 225, 432, 441, 303, 305, 442, 230, 226, 434 and 435, 227 and 259.
	Government new schedule 2—Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence—and amendments (a) to (j) thereto.
	Government new schedule 3—Mandatory life sentences: transitional cases.

David Blunkett: I shall speak to new clauses 30 to 38, with regard to sentencing for murder, new clause 39 on increasing penalties for driving offences causing death, and new clauses 46 to 51 relating to firearms offences. These proposals should be seen in the light of the overall changes that we are making to provide a sensible framework. First, in the Bill we have outlined the purpose of sentencing, on which there is accord across the House. Secondly, we have established the principles and a framework within which the judiciary can use its discretion. Thirdly, and crucially, by offering a clear response to public concerns and establishing clarity and consistency in the sentencing framework, Parliament will see a role for itself. In my view, no disagreement exists between the Government and the judiciary about the fact that it should have the discretion to make decisions in relation to individual cases. We do not intend for the new clauses and amendments to interfere with that. We want to reassert the role of Parliament that historically existed when considering cases of murder, and to ensure that there is clarity and a response to public concern about issues relating to driving, the carrying of guns and the use of firearms. I hope that there will be more light than heat this afternoon, and I intend to deliver the justification for the new measures in that vein rather than taking a bombastic approach on the need for greater responsiveness to public demand.
	There is no question but that the public are bewildered by how sentences can be reached when they know that the crime that has been committed was so heinous that there could be only one sentence: life should mean life. When the death penalty was abolished—I am wholly in favour of that—it was presumed that those who committed such an act against their fellow human beings would go down for the rest of their lives. There was a presumption that the removal of judicial murder would safeguard the interests of the community and send appropriate signals to both perpetrators and the wider community to show that we understood the nature of what was being done and those who perpetrated such heinous crimes.
	As Home Secretary, I have had the privilege and trauma of examining cases for which tariffs were set in which people had committed the worst possible crimes in our community. In cases such as those involving crimes against children, we have to consider not only people who have committed murder—horrendous though that is—but their actions and behaviour before the murder. I take no pleasure in saying this but it is important for people to know that those who have read the cases on to tape for me have done so in tears. The horrendous nature of the cases and the decisions that must be taken are such that it is difficult to get inside the minds of, or to predict the likely future actions of, the people with whom we are dealing.
	I do not apologise for saying that successive Home Secretaries of all political persuasions have intended that we should not only send a signal to, but deal decisively with, those who threaten the life and limb of others, by saying that such people should be given life sentences that would literally put them away for the rest of their lives. We are talking about such cases as multiple and sadistic killings, and when terrorists take the lives of others. In more traditional terms, before suicide bombing occurred, there was at least a way of sending signals to and getting retribution from terrorists. We are talking about incidents of child murder, which I have described, and the way in which people abused others before committing such a crime.

John Bercow: The Home Secretary is addressing a matter of utmost importance. While accepting that in several cases life most certainly should mean life and that it is unimaginable that there could be any mitigating circumstance that would allow an exemption from that edict, is he arguing for life to mean life in cases of heinous crimes on the basis of a commitment to justice or retribution, or is he motivated by a consideration of the capacity to deter?

David Blunkett: I am motivated, as is indicated by the sentencing framework and the new purposes of sentencing, by the desire to show those who are engaged in such actions that there will be clear and unequivocal consequences. Such people are often the associates of those who are the instrument of the intended murder or those drawn into the situation because, on several occasions, more than one person has been engaged in the most horrendous murders. I am also engaged, as the guidelines on sentencing and on the purposes of sentencing set out, with the need to punish. Punishment means that there is an element of retribution on behalf of society. Those aims are not the least bit contradictory and that is why we were careful to ensure that they were not contradictory in the provisions on the purposes of sentencing.

Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although many of us agree with his view on mandatory life sentences, we also agree with the provisions in the Bill that would establish a sentencing guidelines council? Several of us think that the council would be stronger if it included him, the Lord Chief Justice and a senior Member of the House so that all arms of state were represented. Does he accept that his strong case for mandatory sentences for certain murders would find favour on such a council and lead to a consensus on sentencing but that if his proposals were carried today, there might be continual chipping at them by Members of the House and, above all, members of the judiciary? Surely trying to find consensus on an eminently sensible proposal is better than producing a proposal that might lead to further confrontation.

David Blunkett: I do not want confrontation in any sense and I do not imagine that we will have confrontation. We will re-establish what we thought already existed. In 1983, the then Home Secretary introduced the tariff system which, as hon. Members know, was overturned on appeal.
	I am trying to re-establish the role of Parliament and our democratic processes in relation to the most difficult crimes with which we deal and to establish, for the first time, the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which will involve people other than the judiciary, although the judiciary will represent the majority on it. That arrangement is designed to deal with the plethora of sentencing challenges that exist. It would be impossible for any Member of the House or the Executive to do that on an ongoing basis because so many issues and time-consuming questions must be addressed. That is why it is appropriate for the House to lay down principles and frameworks on the cases with which we deal today, for the Sentencing Guidelines Council to make proposals on the broader thrust of sentencing, and for the Home Affairs Committee and the House to return to the issues from time to time to appraise how the Sentencing Guidelines Council is working. That process has been a feature of Parliament since democracy and the franchise were extended and I am not trying to interfere with that in any way.

David Trimble: I have a lot of sympathy with the Government new clauses. As the Home Secretary knows, this Parliament is still responsible for criminal law in Northern Ireland and several measures in the Bill already extend to Northern Ireland. Given that he is introducing new proposals, has he consulted the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on them? What response has he received from the Northern Ireland Office?

David Blunkett: I have consulted and I always take account of representations and concerns on specific issues relating to Northern Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it appropriate, I would be happy to arrange a discussion with him before the Bill enters the House of Lords so that we can take account of any of his concerns and be responsive to them. I hope that he finds that offer acceptable given the complexities that always exist when dealing with the delicate situation in Northern Ireland, especially while he and the Prime Minister are making efforts to re-establish the Executive and to move toward elections being held.

Chris Mullin: May we explore the extent to which the measures introduce arrangements that we believed already existed before the recent court judgments and the extent to which, in practice, a far larger number of people will serve either whole-life tariffs or greatly increased life sentences? What estimates does the Home Secretary have on the overall effect that the measures will have on the lifer population?

David Blunkett: We believe that in time there will be an increase in those serving life sentences and, as a consequence, an increase in that part of the prison population. That will inevitably take time to work through. We have done some work, not least in the past few weeks, to ascertain what changes occurred when the death penalty was abolished and when the tariff system was introduced 20 years ago. As with statistics generally, there are always perverse findings. The statistical data on the abolition of the death penalty were paradoxical because the taking of prisoners' lives reduced the length of time that they served for the most horrendous crimes. Prisoners whose lives were taken served only that time until the death penalty was carried out, so the overall length of time served by the most dangerous criminals was statistically reduced. I hope that that makes sense.
	As for what happened post-1983, according to surveys undertaken for a House of Lords report immediately after the removal of the old system and the introduction of tariffs, the tariffs set in the first six months of the new issue rose by 40 per cent. That fell to a third two years later. It would appear that the judiciary responded to the tariff system and the indications given by the Home Secretary.

Chris Mullin: I just want to press to what extent we are putting in place what we believed already existed and the extent to which that represents a ratcheting up of the length of time that life prisoners will serve and the number of them who will eventually accumulate in our prison system.

David Blunkett: Let me give examples. When life means life for crimes that are committed in the most horrendous circumstances, that will ratchet up the length of time served, but only in line with what the House intended when it voted in 1983 and by its subsequent actions. Today I am responding to the judgment. Although I accept that it takes the tariff out of the hands of the Home Secretary—as I said, no Home Secretary would be sorry to see that go—we are trying to achieve the same result.
	In 1985, for instance, the trial judge gave a sentence of 20 years for an offence of rape and murder and rape and attempted murder by one individual. The Lord Chief Justice ratified that, but the Home Secretary increased it to 30 years. In 1996, the trial judge recommended 25 years for an offence of three sexual assaults and murders. The Lord Chief Justice affirmed. The tariff was 35 years. In 2000, three murders resulted in a sentence of 25 years. The Lord Chief Justice agreed with that. The tariff was set at 35 years.
	It is not difficult to see from those examples that, as a consequence of decisions taken by the Home Secretary, tariff setting increased the length of time served for the multiple crimes of murder and rape, which no one in the House would dispute are horrendous. I want to codify that within principles and the sentencing framework so that the decision is taken not by the Home Secretary now or in the future, but by the judiciary. Should it use its discretion outside the terms laid down by the House, it will account for that publicly in court, which is a reasonable and transparent way to behave in a free and liberal society, as the shadow Home Secretary described it yesterday.

Simon Hughes: What has changed since April last year when the Home Secretary received the Sentencing Advisory Panel advice to the Court of Appeal? It suggested that the norm—the starting point—should be 14 years, the higher level about four years above that, and the lower level about four years below it. The advice also said that the 30-year tariff should be applied in exceptional circumstances only and that whole-life tariffs were not a good idea. It clearly recommended that young people should have nothing like a starting point of 15 years. I gather that the Home Secretary accepted that advice a year ago. What has made him change his mind?

David Blunkett: There has clearly been a misunderstanding. The Home Secretary does not ratify the advice of the Sentencing Advisory Panel. I have accepted no sentencing precepts for murder. I have continued in the best way that I can to fulfil the obligations and duties put on me to set tariffs for murders, including some of the most horrendous murders that were committed before I took over as Home Secretary. I believe that the sentencing principles and framework that I am laying down are correct. They are my suggestions, discussed with Ministers and my officials, and attempt to replace, and therefore to restore, the general sense of what Parliament required of the Executive in giving guidance to the judiciary and responding to it.

Dominic Grieve: I understand the Home Secretary's arguments on the full-life tariff and the criteria that have been established. Is it not the case that if we go down this road it is likely that more full-life tariff sentences will be imposed, as I think he accepted? In such circumstances, is a 30-year sentence for the next category down the scale the correct median point to be built up or down? It is our impression that that figure is rather high. It would be interesting to understand the Government's reasons for choosing it.

David Blunkett: It is a high figure. In the case of the murder of a police or prison officer, or a murder involving the use of firearms, we need to send a clear signal that such horrendous crimes warrant a more severe starting point for sentencing. People need to understand that life means life. That has not been the case because people who have been given life sentences have served anything but life. People need to know that there is clarity and consistency so that they have confidence in the system. We need to send those signals and establish a framework in which it is clear that such crimes—especially those in which someone has put his or her life on the line in dealing with the most dangerous criminals—warrant a more severe starting point for sentencing. We also need a minimum sentence of 15 years, which did not exist before, so that that, too, sends a signal.
	Let me draw breath for a minute. People cannot understand that when someone has been found guilty of murder—there are arguments about whether a transfer to manslaughter is more appropriate, and I understand those—the sentence that is served for taking a life does not always equate to other forms of criminality for which people at a lower level of the sentencing framework are serving longer sentences. People think, honestly, that we have all lost our marbles. They do not understand how, if murder is the most horrendous crime, others do not see that the perpetrators must be put in jail for as long as possible so that society demonstrates its common sense through its actions.

Douglas Hogg: Should not the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why it is being asked to approve a range of life sentence tariffs which are greatly in excess of the range set out in the practice directions from the Lord Chief Justice of May 2002? There, the suggested starting point was 12 years, rising to 15 and 16 years, then to 20 years, and only in exceptional cases, 30 years or whole life? The plain truth is that what we are being asked to approve is substantially in excess of what the Lord Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal recommended.

David Blunkett: Yes, I accept that entirely. I disagreed with the Lord Chief Justice's practice guidance. I happen to believe, and the House can take a contrary view if it wishes, that we should lay down a framework that will give the people of this country confidence in the system, for two reasons—first, that those who commit the most horrendous murders will get what used to be called, in old-fashioned language, their just deserts. Secondly, when people have confidence in the system and there is consistency in the treatment of the most difficult and dangerous crimes, they might be prepared to listen to a broader debate about sentencing policy, the sentencing framework and the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, and about how we stop lower-level repeat offenders reoffending. We can have, in the House and in the country, a much more rational debate if people believe that we have got it right at a level that they currently do not understand.

Graham Allen: I thank the Home Secretary for his typical generosity in giving way yet again to me. In the next bunch of amendments, we will create a sentencing guidelines council, which is designed to achieve a broader-based consensus on sentencing across the board. In the present group of amendments, we are taking from the council's ambit a number of key offences—murder through driving and firearms offences. Does my right hon. Friend accept that if his case is as strong as I believe it to be—I know that he believes passionately in it—he could win his case around the table with the Lord Chief Justice, other members of the judiciary, and a broader-based group including prison governors and police officers, being present, himself as a full member? That would be a way of making sentencing command public support not just today, because of an impassioned argument arising from a particular offence, but for a long time, so that we could end the problem of megaphone diplomacy between his Department, the judiciary and others who are concerned about the issue? Will my right hon. Friend put the offences before the Sentencing Guidelines Council and get consensus?

David Blunkett: If I believed it was appropriate, following the decision on tariffs, simply to leave the matter to the future, I would have done so. We cannot do that. As we made clear at the beginning of the year, we must make decisions about how we proceed following the judgment. I believe that these are decisions that should be taken by the House. We cannot deal with the multiplicity of sentencing guidance required, and I could not possibly sit on the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I have a slot each day somewhere between 12 midnight and 5.30 am.

Graham Allen: Depute someone.

David Blunkett: I could depute someone. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) would probably not be too pleased if I put him on such duties as well, although he would perform them extremely well, on the basis of yesterday's performance.

Graham Allen: Oh, all right, I will do it.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend has volunteered, and I have every confidence that he would come to the same conclusions as the House will reach later this afternoon. We know that there are certain cases on which the House has historically ruled, such as when it ruled that there should, and eventually that there should not, be a death penalty, and the kind of sentences that we are debating this afternoon arising from death by dangerous and careless driving or firearms offences. There have been certain historic sentences for which the House has taken responsibility.
	It is right that the House should take responsibility. Democracy is the stronger for politicians who take decisive action, who are seen to be held to account, and who can say to the public, "If you make representations to us, if you want to change, we are here and available to make it happen." In our democracy, people are not aggravated by politicians taking responsibility and making decisions. They are fed up with politicians not taking responsibility, not making decisions, not making them fast enough and not responding effectively to rapid change economically, socially and in the criminal justice system.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

John Bercow: rose—

David Blunkett: Which one first?

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Home Secretary and to my hon. Friend. I agree with the Home Secretary in the sentiments that he expressed, but it is important, is it not, that Parliament should not raise unrealistic expectations about what it intends to do, which prove not to be feasible? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the guidelines on sentences. That sends out a signal about what Parliament wants, but in view of the way that they are framed, and in view of the fact that the 15 and 30-year sentences may be considered too high by the judiciary, it may well not be what the public get. Will not that bring Parliament into disrepute, as much as the judiciary?

David Blunkett: It would, if the will of Parliament were flouted without good cause. I do not believe that the senior judiciary—it will be members of the senior judiciary who deal with these matters—will do that. They may be reluctant, as many of them were, to commit people to the condemned cell, but they did, and they did so because that was the will of Parliament. I believe that they will respond, and that where they exercise their discretion, they will explain in court why they did so.
	That is eminently sensible. It does not flout human rights. It will not run us into the difficulties that we faced in relation to the abolition of the tariff-setting powers. It will give Parliament and the people of this country confidence that they have provided judges with the principles and framework to carry out the will of the people.

John Bercow: The Home Secretary has been generous in giving way. Decisiveness should not be a synonym for rigidity. Although most of us would accept that those who commit the most bestial murders and who show no sign of repentance or rehabilitation should remain incarcerated indefinitely and probably for the duration of their natural lives, will the right hon. Gentleman concede and put on the record that those who commit the most bestial murders but who, over a period, show sustained evidence of repentance and rehabilitation should always have the hope that they might be released?

David Blunkett: No. I do not agree. Although the conditions in which such people are held may be commensurate with the changes brought about in their apparent character, the kind of multiple and sadistic murders that would warrant a life sentence, meaning life, are such that we could not have confidence, whatever the psychiatric appraisal may be, that those people would be safe in the community or safe to the community.
	If those who have committed bestial murders are let out into society, their own lives may be at risk. I am not interested in a wild west society of vigilante retribution. It is in everybody's interests to try to get the issue right and to ensure that people understand that, while conditions may change—they have done so in respect of lifers—we must stand firm. We are talking, thank God, about a small number of people, but we are also dealing with the nature of the impact that they have.

Simon Hughes: Given that the Home Secretary has accepted that his proposals will ratchet up sentences for many categories of people convicted of murder, and as more people are already serving life imprisonment in England and Wales than in any other country in western Europe—in the whole of Europe, only Cyprus and Moldova have proportionately more—did he consult the senior judiciary before the practice direction was issued last May and has he consulted on his proposals since the relevant court judgments at the end of last year? Does he believe that the proposal will change people's behaviour or reduce crime at all, given that many other countries have much lower sentences and do not have nearly as much serious crime?

David Blunkett: If I might use a term from yesterday, the jury is out in relation to the nature of the response to the most severe sentences—

Edward Garnier: When will it come back?

David Blunkett: It will be coming back on the horrendous murders. As I pointed out yesterday, we are not reintroducing the mode of trial legislation.
	I think that a contradictory set of precepts is advanced by those who oppose what I am doing. It is hard not to conclude that the reduction in the most bestial murders and violence in the United States has been a response to the way in which that country has dealt with such criminality. Yet it is also interesting to consider other forms of punishment and the response to it in other parts of Europe, as opposed to Britain. We need to look at the nature of society, the tendency towards an increase in violence, the response of society to such incidents at a local and not only national or parliamentary level and the way in which family and community life provide a different framework in which people respond.
	Those are very big and important issues. I would like to recognise the sort of response that is made in some parts of Europe to the way in which the maintenance of family life and community pressure change the nature of violence. At the same time, there is a need to send signals in the way in which we lay down sentencing principles and frameworks so as to make everyone understand where we are coming from and the actions that will be taken. That is about consequences, and from the actions of children to those of horrendous murderers, consequences really matter.

Edward Garnier: As the Home Secretary accepted a moment ago, if the provisions take effect, one of the consequences will be a growth in the already high prison population. Can he assure us that, if it does grow, there will be sufficient prison places to house the increased number for long periods?

David Blunkett: Yes, I can. Not only am I taking steps to increase availability this year by 960 prison places, but I am mindful that we will have to change the nature of prison accommodation to accommodate the relatively small increase in the number of people spending longer in jail. I shall speak tomorrow at the Prison Officers Association conference, which will obviously be one of the experiences of my life. I shall acknowledge that the proposal is a challenge for the Prison Service and prison officers, and that we need to help them with that. At the other end of the scale, I have joined the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor in seeking ways of reducing the prison population, including ideas proposed in the Bill—one of them, custody minus, is mine—and to try to help with rehabilitation and the avoidance of reoffending, not least for first-time offenders. If we can get that right, we will be able to reduce the prison population by dealing with those who should not be in prison and can be quickly rehabilitated and provide reparation, while getting tough with those who should stay in prison a lot longer and threaten life and limb when they come out.
	For instance, two years ago, when I became Home Secretary, I did my best to prevent a multiple rapist from being released into the community without compulsory supervision. That was not required at the time, but the Bill puts that right. Within three months, he had abducted and raped a young student—as it happens, the crime was committed in my city—in highly predictable circumstances. The man should never have been allowed out in the first place. If he had not been released, a young woman's life would not have been ruined.
	We see such issues day in, day out, and I appreciate that we have not addressed them by waving such cases in the air. As I said, we should address them calmly. I am not seeking headlines. Indeed, in the past few months, I have been the one who has taken on at least two of the tabloid newspapers in a way that has got me some very adverse headlines, but I am interested in responding to the needs of the public, which is a very different matter.
	On new clause 39 and causing death by dangerous driving, careless driving while under the influence of drink and the way in which people take life, we are responding to what some judges want. In my locality, a judge recently gave a sentence of more than the 10 years specified. Of course, it was revised on appeal because he had exceeded the sentence that was available to him in respect of a most horrendous case in which a person who had killed somebody in such circumstances carried on drinking. We need to say to people that we will not wait for anyone else to do something about the issue, but allow judges discretion to do something about it themselves.

Denis Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I welcome the new clause, but will he consider introducing a new offence of aggravated death caused by dangerous driving that carries a life sentence? He is aware of the case in my constituency involving the tragic death of young Rebecca Sawyer, who was killed by a criminal motorist who had 89 previous convictions, one of which was for causing death by dangerous driving. Does he agree that the public need to be protected from these very dangerous individuals?

David Blunkett: Yes. Where people are sentenced on only one count—I shall refer to this issue on Third Reading—but other major counts should be dealt with at the same time, we will pick up the Law Commission report in taking that forward. In helpfulness to the House, I point out now that I shall seek the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Select Committee on Home Affairs before introducing such a measure in the House of Lords in order to fast-track the Law Commission recommendations and deal with a terrible anomaly whereby people do not get the sentence required, but a specimen sentence resulting from the length and complexity involved in dealing with a multiplicity of issues. Of course, where somebody has been sentenced previously—this relates to what I describe a parquet flooring effect, rather than building a wall—we also need to take that into account, so that previous convictions can be dealt with in the sentence as well as the judgment.
	I accept, however, that that will not wholly deal with the case on which my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) has been campaigning. I commend him and many of his colleagues from the north-east for highlighting what tragically appears to be a cluster of cases in that region demonstrating that we have not yet got things right. I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that we should undertake a full review of road traffic offences, including the question whether we should introduce manslaughter.

Andrew Miller: As a patron of RoadPeace, may I praise and welcome the new clause? As part of the review that will be conducted, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the issues are considered from the point of view of the victims' families? From their point of view, death in violent circumstances means just that, irrespective of the nature of the weapon used. That is the absurdity that road traffic victims' families do not understand—the comparison between an accidental shooting with a shotgun and being mowed down with a tonne of steel.

David Blunkett: Let me deal with the principal point. It is very important that the voices of victims and their families should be heard. There have been the most terrible occasions on which families have been unable to come to terms with what has happened for the rest of their lives and believe that they have not been listened to and that their voices go unheeded. We need to find ways of addressing that.

David Trimble: There is a very serious problem in Northern Ireland with regard to so-called joyriding, which has caused a significant number of fatalities, with all the suffering for families that flows from that. A couple of months ago, a group of bereaved parents of persons who have been killed as a result of joyriding lobbied this House and met a wide range of Members from both sides of the House. A serious problem needs to be addressed as regards the law in Northern Ireland. If the welcome changes in the Bill go on to the statute book leaving out Northern Ireland, that will send a wholly wrong message to the public in Northern Ireland, as well as to the judiciary, who need a wake-up call on this issue.

David Blunkett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reinforcing the wider point. I take up the cry from the heart that was echoed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) yesterday evening, when she described the importance of recognising the issues in Northern Ireland and addressing them as quickly as possible.

Lady Hermon: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: How could I not give way to the hon. Lady, who is not only charming, but assiduous, and continues to make an important contribution?

Lady Hermon: The Home Secretary has just turned the colour of my face quite scarlet, but I appreciate his warm comments. They are, of course, reciprocated—I hold him in the highest regard.
	As always, I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said in the course of his speech. A few moments ago, he put emphasis on consistency in sentencing throughout the United Kingdom, which is absolutely fundamental. He also remarked—I hope that I remember correctly—that the death of a police officer warrants the very clear signal that it warrants a life sentence. Speaking as someone who comes from Northern Ireland, where 302 members of the police service have died as a result of 30 years of vicious terrorism, it behoves the Home Secretary to send a very clear message to serving members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland that their lives are worth every bit as much as the life of a police officer in Manchester, London, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

David Blunkett: My original remarks had the benefit of accuracy and veracity, whatever the sedentary and ungallant comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) may have suggested. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that the life of a police officer in Northern Ireland deserves, and has, the same importance as that of a police officer on the British mainland.

Graham Allen: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and compliment him on encouraging a very positive debate.
	To return to the broader picture, the new clause refers to dangerous driving and death by driving. That set of sentences will be abstracted from the Sentencing Guidelines Council that will be newly created. My right hon. Friend says that it is up to Parliament to decide on certain matters, but we all know that in reality the Home Secretary will put them to the House of Commons and invariably get his way. We all look to my right hon. Friend with affection and trust, but future Governments and Home Secretaries may introduce other categories of offences that can be taken away from the Sentencing Guidelines Council and put to the House. Does he fear that if that happens, we could get into a bidding war between various factions in the House. If someone says, "Five years for burglary", someone else will say, "Do I hear six, seven or eight?" Perhaps this is not the best, most measured way in which to decide on sentencing guidelines.

David Blunkett: Invariably, I hope; inevitably, never. We are beholden to this House and to the electorate. I fear that my hon. Friend, flattering though his remarks are, misses the point that there is no chance that the House will constantly return to these issues through criminal justice and sentencing legislation. That is why the Sentencing Guidelines Council makes good sense in terms of its light touch vis-à-vis Parliament and its broader touch in terms of reflecting and responding to changing circumstances and needs. I hope that it will work effectively.
	Let me be clear. We cannot keep returning to sentencing policy: there is not sufficient parliamentary time to do so, even if we wished it. There has not been a bidding war. That is partly because of the measured approach of the shadow Home Secretary and of the Liberal Democrat spokesman—although I do not always agree with him—and partly because of our willingness to try to address the broader issues. We have reached agreement with the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor on a general framework, which experienced a slight hiccup at the turn of the year, but is back on stream again. If we can get that right without hyping the heat, rather than the light, so much the better.
	We are asking the House to agree to a mandatory five-year sentence in relation to firearms. We have discussed that matter in the House on several occasions, and hon. Members are very familiar with it. I merely want to report to the House that the amnesty that we held in April succeeded much more effectively in achieving the handing in of weaponry than we had expected. More than 40,000 weapons have been handed in, compared with 23,000 in the post-Dunblane period, as well as almost 1 million rounds of ammunition. I commend all those who took part in supporting and working for that: the young people who worked with us; radio stations and the press; the people who organised the youth concert; and the police. It has been a remarkable success that bodes well for the future.
	As well as the new five-year minimum sentence, we are raising the penalty for smuggling from seven years to 10 years to bring it into line with legislation that we have already introduced, including the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Dominic Grieve: I am interested to see the proposals on firearms, which, as hon. Members will hear in a moment, we support. I would be fascinated to learn, however, why the decision was taken to confine the mandatory sentence to prohibited firearms, because that is quite contrary to what the Prime Minister has said on about seven occasions during Prime Minister's questions.

David Blunkett: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should have hit upon that, so let me share, in the quiet confidence of this Chamber, the fact that the very same question passed my lips a short while ago. I said, "Look,"—as the Prime Minister would say—"this is something that we need to address." The logic of being able cleanly and clearly to deal with what is prohibited is self-evident. The question of whether we should broaden prohibition to other areas is one that this House and the wider public should debate more thoroughly before we return to it. It is an interesting question. I am tickled by the fact that the hon. Gentleman has also been reflecting on it, and I look forward to him and his hon. Friends providing me with the solution that I did not have time to come up with.
	Today, Parliament lays down a principle and a framework, provides discretion, but within specific bounds, and demonstrates that democracy can respond to the needs of the public and the wishes of the people. We can also ensure that the signals are clear and that we get the benchmarks right. In my view, that strengthens liberty, freedom and democracy. Above all, it strengthens confidence in justice. If we have clarity, consistency and confidence, we also have a better debate about the way in which we deal with the underlying issues of prevention and bring other forces of social policy to bear so that we have a safer, more sustained and desirable community in which to live.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Home Secretary for his explanation of these important provisions. I do not criticise the manner in which he did that, but it is profoundly unsatisfactory to have one debate on three such distinct and important topics. As always, the devil lies in the detail of the proposals, and the amount of time available for hon. Members to do them justice is inadequate. The Opposition will not try to divide the House on any of the principles or the policies that the Home Secretary is introducing. However, I know from my reservations about some aspects that they will require detailed scrutiny, which can now be done only in another place. I deeply regret that, because the House will thereby abdicate its responsibility for the matter.

Graham Allen: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his conduct and that of his party in Committee, where our proceedings were extremely constructive. However, the shadow Leader of the House and shadow Chief Whip have cried wolf day after day about programme motions. When an issue of substance arises—I concede that the hon. Gentleman has a point about the amount of time that should be devoted to the new clauses—several hon. Members who might otherwise be sympathetic are not, because of the way in which some of his colleagues clown around on programming.

Dominic Grieve: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the Bill went into Committee, we said that we intended to try to make programming work. I do not want to go over ancient history, but the measure's progress in Committee showed that programming could be made to work, because we got 90 per cent. of the way there. However, we did not cover 10 per cent., and some aspects of the Bill were not properly scrutinised in Committee. I can recall several examples of important aspects that were not considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given hon. Members some leeway, but I hope that we shall now discuss the new clauses and amendments, not the programme motion.

Dominic Grieve: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clearly, Report affords the Government an opportunity to table further amendments. However, the Government amendments are massive, and the time for their consideration is insufficient.
	I want to consider the Government's proposals for guidelines on sentencing for murder. First, I welcome the principle behind them. Indeed, the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has been cited publicly and he has advocated the principle on several occasions. We believe that Parliament should have a role in setting sentencing guidelines. We go further than doing that only for murder. As hon. Members know, we have tabled amendments in the next batch that would provide for parliamentary input—not decision making—into sentencing guidelines more generally. The principle is therefore welcome. The Home Secretary's decision to be of like mind with my right hon. Friend is reassuring.
	Secondly, new schedule 2, which deals with a whole-life order, appears to have been properly drafted to respond to public anxiety on the topic. The criteria that the Government have set—
	"a substantial degree of premeditation or planning . . . abduction . . . sexual or sadistic conduct . . . the murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation . . . a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, or . . . a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder"—
	appear clearly set out. There is also the possibility of making an exception if necessary. The guidelines therefore strike us as sensible. If that were the scope of the Home Secretary's intentions, he would have our wholehearted support.
	However, greater problems arise because of the attempt to lay down guidelines on other categories of murder, depending on their seriousness. Again, I have no objection to the principle, but when Lord Falconer explained what was going to happen at a meeting after sending us some detail in advance, for which we were grateful, we were startled by the Government's proposed method of achieving it.
	The "Starting points" in new schedule 2 give the impression that the Government have sought to find a median point in taking 30 years for some serious categories of murder, and 15 years as a minimum term for other categories. It has already been said that sentences of 30 years are at the top end of the tariff for the worst sorts of murder. I have no doubt that statistics would show that, and it would be interesting if the Government and the Home Secretary could provide them. I acknowledge that the Home Secretary said that a tariff sentence of 35 years had been awarded. I believe that longer sentences have been given in one or two exceptional cases: for example, the Home Secretary has imposed a sentence of 50 years, to which I shall revert shortly.
	The proposals are remarkable, because in future the Home Secretary intends cases that have attracted 35 or 50-year tariffs to fall squarely within the parameters of the whole-life order. He nods. Given that we shall include more convicted murderers in the remit of whole-life orders because of the appalling nature of their offences—I do not disagree with that—a sentence of 30 years for those who fall outside that classification is at the top of the tariff, not a median point that the judge can increase or reduce. The same applies to the minimum term of 15 years. The Home Secretary may correct me, but many people who commit murder do not serve 15 years in prison or anything approaching that. He made a comment that may have been a bit of a giveaway when he said that in the past few weeks people in the Home Office had been running around trying to ascertain the effects of past tariff fixing on prison population numbers.
	The rapidity with which the proposals have been put together shines through them.I always worry about material that is put together extremely rapidly, because it often does not bear close scrutiny, and above all tends to prove unworkable when implemented.
	The Home Secretary wants to convey a message of which I wholly approve: that Parliament wants murderers to receive proper sentences, that those who commit the more serious offences should go to prison for a long time, and that those who commit the most serious offences should never be released. We must be realistic, however. If the guidelines we are establishing, particularly those specifying 30 and 15 years, bear no relation to the reality of sentencing practice, or indeed to the diversity of the criminals to be sentenced, we may be straying down the wrong road.
	It might be better to substitute the sentences—I think they are of 20 and 12 years—suggested in amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I do not advocate that to the Home Secretary; I merely say that such an alternative should still allow very long sentences to be imposed within tariff sentence fixing. Something troubles me about the period of 30 years in particular: it sends out an unrealistic message, whose recipients potentially include prisoners who, despite having committed grave crimes, might be suitable for release in a rather shorter time.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in these matters. Has he seen any evidence of what considerably higher sentences for murderers would mean in practice? Does he accept that one problem of the whole-life sentence, although it is not the only problem, is that it means very different things to different people? It will not mean the same to a 60-year-old as it will to a 21-year-old.

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with the last point. It will mean enormously different things to a 60-year-old and a 21-year-old, and it will mean something different again to the one or two people who have been imprisoned for murder in their 70s.
	I visited Her Majesty's Prison Kingston in Portsmouth, which contains many extremely elderly lifers. One was completely senile, and I questioned whether there was any point in his continued detention. Adopting a characteristically bureaucratic approach, the Home Office expressed the view that it was very proper for someone who was completely senile and suffering from Parkinson's disease to be in one of Her Majesty's prisons, but I found it difficult to see the purpose of the man's imprisonment given his unawareness of his own surroundings.

Graham Allen: The hon. Gentleman and the shadow Home Secretary may not have a list of other offences for which they might wish to decide the penalties should they take office, but—perhaps to frighten my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—will the hon. Gentleman consider whether the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) might enjoy using a power of this kind to deal with a range of offences? He might wish to put his proposals to the House, with a majority, and to push them through.
	It is not the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham who would propose changes in tariffs; there could be a bidding war in the House, in which we would all have to prove how tough we would be on the various offences. That would lead to an irrational process of sentencing which, sadly, the judiciary would be right to try to strike down in various ways.

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree. We should certainly try to avoid such bidding wars. In fairness, I do not consider that the Home Secretary is embarking on one: I have never suggested that, and would not dream of suggesting it. These are perfectly cogent and sensible proposals. When the House comes to deal with our proposals for sentencing guidelines generally, it will be seen that one of the things we wanted to prevent was a bidding war. We would prevent it by not allowing Parliament to initiate the sentencing guidelines process.
	We will not oppose the Home Secretary's proposal today, but we shall want to look carefully at the periods of 30 and 15 years, because we are concerned about them. We are even more concerned about something else, however. As far as I recollect, the Home Secretary did not once mention the position of juveniles, although his proposals affect them just as much as they affect adults.
	In this country we have always differentiated between adults who commit murder and juveniles who commit murder. That is enshrined in the different sentencing regimes, if only in the words involved. Adults receive a sentence of life imprisonment, while a different order is applied to juveniles, described as "detention at Her Majesty's pleasure". Whatever the words imply, however, I saw a clear differentiation. The Home Secretary may not disagree with my perception of a much greater emphasis on rehabilitation in the case of juveniles. The view seemed to be that although they must clearly be punished, it was in the widest interests of society for them to be released as soon as possible if it had been satisfactorily established that rehabilitation had indeed occurred.
	Some of those involved may be very young indeed. They may be children of 11 or 12. They may also have committed murder in a variety of circumstances, from a fight outside a school in which knives were produced to something with sadistic overtones. The murder may have been committed by a person approaching his or her 18th birthday, or by a person aged only 11.

Douglas Hogg: My understanding is that under new schedule 2 the starting point of the sentence of the two people who killed James Bulger would be 30 years—and they were very young at the time.

Dominic Grieve: That is an important point. I feel that attempting to be prescriptive in setting guidelines in relation to children who commit murder is a very dangerous exercise. Certainly I am mindful of the case of the murderers of James Bulger, because it excited a huge amount of public comment. Interestingly, the trial judge made a recommendation at the time of their detention, and ultimately that proved to be the period that they served. It appears—and one can only hope that it is the case—that they had been properly and completely rehabilitated during that period, which may be significant.
	I do not want to get involved in discussing individual cases, however, because there is an infinite variety of cases. I feel strongly that the application of these rules to juveniles moves us on to very shaky ground, and is capable of doing great injustice. When I met Lord Falconer, I asked him—among other things—how a judge who felt that the proper period allowing retribution, deterrence and probable rehabilitation was likely to be very short in the case of a 12-year-old would get around the problem of the minimum 15-year term proposed in the new schedule. His response was that the judges were ingenious people, but I must tell the Home Secretary that I do not think we should have to ask the judiciary to exercise ingenuity in wriggling around rules which it would be better not to apply to juveniles at all.
	I realise that this is a difficult issue to which there is no easy answer. I accept that a 17-year-old who has committed a sadistic killing may have to be detained for a very long time, possibly for as long as an adult would be in the same circumstances, if he is showing marked psychopathic tendencies. Equally, however, if we consider the generality of such offences—heaven knows, these offenders come in all shapes and sizes and the offences themselves, of every kind, are appalling enough—this kind of prescriptive guideline seems rather far removed from what is probably required. Even though we will not vote against these proposals, I would urge the Home Secretary to go away and think very carefully about whether this is the correct approach.
	I would be much happier to see juveniles taken out of the guidelines altogether, because we have come to a point at which we rely on the judiciary's discretion to say that cases are likely to be so varied that we cannot lay down prescriptive guidelines on the number of years to be served. If the Home Secretary were minded to introduce a measure to lay down criteria on which a determination might take place, I would certainly be happy to help, support and co-operate with him. I would much prefer that, because I think that prescribing figures in a schedule will lead to many problems and be unlikely to do justice.

Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on this point, but if he is saying that, in respect of juveniles, the matter should be left to the discretion of the trial judge—which, incidentally, is my view—I have some difficulty is seeing why he does not extend that general proposition to the sentencing of adults. I believe that that, too, should be left to the discretion of the trial judge, unfettered by the schedule.

Dominic Grieve: I am well aware of the strong views that my right hon. and learned Friend has on this issue, and he advances a perfectly good argument. Speaking for myself, however, and for the Conservative Front Bench on this matter, we believe that there is a proper role for Parliament here, especially in view of the changes that have unfortunately come about in the Home Secretary's ability to exercise a discretion on tariffs—

Douglas Hogg: It is a very good thing that he cannot.

Dominic Grieve: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend thinks that that is a good thing, but—

Douglas Hogg: Well, I did it when I was Minister.

Dominic Grieve: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend did it, but I believe that the public have an entitlement, which stems ultimately from the time when capital punishment was abolished, to expect that there will be more than just judicial input into the fixing of the periods that murderers will spend in prison. That said, one of the ironies of the situation that we must bear in mind—I am speaking generally about the proposals now—is that, in the days when we hanged the worst murderers, those who were reprieved tended to serve much shorter sentences than the generality of murderers do now.
	That brings me back to where I started. We must be careful that, in seeking properly to address public disquiet about the most serious murderers, we do not simply introduce a ratcheting up of tariffs for every murderer, including those who could properly be rehabilitated and safely released. The Home Secretary is going to have to consider that question carefully. Indeed, if I understood him correctly, he is already doing so, given that he is making inquiries into what happened the last time tariffs were adjusted. It would be helpful if, before the Bill becomes law—and certainly in another place—we could have access to the information that the Home Secretary is collating about how this measure might work in practice.
	I am conscious of the passage of time, and I would like to move briefly on to two other matters that must be considered in the amalgam before us. The first relates to road traffic offences. We welcome the proposals for increasing the sentences for aggravated vehicle-taking involving killing from five to 14 years, for causing death by dangerous driving from 10 to 14 years, and for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs from 10 to 14 years.
	Those provisions are wholly compatible with a measured response to public outrage at the perception that the courts have been fettered in their ability to deal with people who commit very serious offences. Some of those people clearly pose a serious risk to other members of the public through their inability to restrain themselves from repeating their past behaviour, particularly when using motor cars. That seems to be a real problem, and the provisions still allow for all the necessary discretion for the judiciary to do justice in individual cases.
	The second issue relates to firearms offences. At the risk of repeating myself, I can only express pleasure that the provision on firearms offences that has finally come out of the Home Office seems to be extremely sensible. I am bound to say that, when it was first floated, it looked as though common sense had disappeared, because there were suggestions of mandatory five-year sentences, and no suggestion of exceptions. When the earliest announcements were made, there was no suggestion that the measure would not apply to every type of firearm. Somewhere, however, common sense has prevailed, even if the Prime Minister himself seems to have been suffering from a certain cognitive dysfunction, in that he was unable to realise what was going on. He has repeated on many occasions an entirely contrary story on what this legislation was going to be about. Anyway, I am glad that even the occupant of No. 10 Downing street has finally cottoned on to the fact that a sensible and measured response might not be the one that he has been proclaiming to the public. The provision before us seems to be a sensible one.

Graham Allen: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that the measures are so sensible that the same conclusions could have been arrived at by a broad-based sentencing guidelines council?

Dominic Grieve: I have to say that I think the hon. Gentleman is right. [Interruption.] I hear the Home Secretary say, "In time." Of course, we cannot create something that does not currently exist, but in the later stages of our debate today we might go some way towards achieving that. In the meantime, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	These measures seem sensible, and I am also pleased that the Home Secretary has provided a mechanism by which they might be suspended for those under 18 if the rate of gun crime were to decrease. At the moment, that would probably be difficult to do because there is a lot of evidence that many under-18s seem to have got into the habit of carrying handguns. That is a serious problem.

Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to keep on nagging my hon. Friend. He welcomes the provision on firearms offences, but does he recognise that the mandatory minimum sentence of five years would apply to the possession of a revolver that happened to be a souvenir from the second world war, and that the only way in which a veteran could escape being sentenced to five years would be by pleading exceptional circumstances? Whether exceptional circumstances applied would be a matter for the courts, so, prima facie, the veteran would get five years.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. It is one that I was about to come to, so he pre-empts me, but he does so very properly. I have seen the amendment that he has tabled. He clearly has an anxiety, which I fully understand, that although there is a mechanism by which it might be possible to suspend the operation of the mandatory minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances, that would not necessarily meet the sort of case that he has just described.
	In a letter written to me by a Minister in the Home Office—it might even have been by the Home Secretary himself; I am afraid I cannot remember now—it was specifically pointed out that the sorts of person whom the Government would expect to be spared from the mandatory sentence would include someone who found a handgun among the personal effects of their late father, the day before the police turned up. I see that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is already nodding in recognition. Perhaps such a handgun belonged to his father. The point that my right hon. and learned Friend has most pertinently raised is this: should the provision have applied to the hon. Gentleman's father, or should the hon. Gentleman have gone to prison for the period in question because he had held on to the souvenir?
	My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point, and I seek clarification from the Home Secretary as to whether the scope of exceptional circumstances would extend to a person in such a position. There is a clear difference between finding in somebody else's personal effects a revolver that is a leftover from the second world war and not declaring it for several weeks, during which time the police come to visit and make an arrest, and a septuagenarian holding on to a second world war revolver and then being visited by the police. If that septuagenarian, or octogenarian, would be subject to the mandatory minimum sentence, my right hon. and learned Friend is right, but I do not want such a circumstance to occur.
	This is where the devil lies in the detail, and I certainly hope that we may hear from the Home Secretary—if not today, then at some later stage—how he sees the provision operating. I have to say that my reading suggests that the exceptional circumstances measure would provide for the example of the father of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but if I am wrong I shall be exceptionally grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for bringing the matter to the House's attention.

Douglas Hogg: The truth is that it is not for any of us to determine whether the exceptional circumstance applies. We must determine whether the language of the statute obliges the court to impose a five-year sentence. The truth is that the language of the statute obliges the court to do precisely that, unless there are exceptional reasons. How can we say that a person who has chosen to keep a handgun for more than 40 years is an exceptional circumstance?

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I hope that the Government will look at the issue. I hope also, and intend, that if it remains unsatisfactory, it will be rectified in the other place, and I give him an assurance that we shall participate in seeking to achieve that. One of the problems that we face is that, the measure having been published only in the past few days, it is difficult to work out in detail how it would operate in practice. However, I certainly take the view that there has to be some flexibility for those people who hang on to ancient weaponry as souvenirs, rather than those who clearly have guns in their possession for a nefarious purpose.

Graham Allen: Under the proposed structure for examining sentencing guidelines, there is a preliminary body called the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which already exists. That gathering of boffins, officials and academics would take away a proposal on sentencing guidelines, look at it thoroughly, commission research if necessary, and, after many months, produce a report for the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The council would then take several months, or as long as it needed, to issue new and appropriate guidelines.
	We should not legislate according to reflex, although we are all desperately anxious about situations such as the one that arose when two young ladies were shot dead in Birmingham. Going through a cool, protracted, double-barrelled period of consideration would produce sentencing guidelines that involved an examination of the very questions that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It would also have saved my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston from perhaps being arrested when he went to collect his father's belongings.

Dominic Grieve: I shall be careful to avoid abusing parliamentary privilege by joining in as aspersions are cast towards the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I shall restrain myself wholly in that. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is right—of course he is. The difficulty here is that we have had only a few months to consider proposals, and I am sure that the Home Office had not even thought about them until the events of Christmas and of January this year.

David Blunkett: I have enjoyed the entertainment, particularly at the expense of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but we ought to put the record straight. It was very clear indeed that the growth in gun crime and associated violence exercised all Members of the House during the autumn. We said in December that we would take action. That was a response not to the crimes committed on new year's eve but to growing concerns: we published the material, called the round-table talks, and made it absolutely clear in the first week of January that that was the case. I do not want myths to get their boots on around the world again.

Dominic Grieve: I apologise to the Home Secretary. Indeed, I realise that, as there was a great deal of publicity last year surrounding the arrest of a singer who had a firearm in his car. The sentence passed on him, whether it was correct or whether it should have been much greater, was the subject of considerable public debate. I accept that.
	It is important that we provide for exceptions. We have said throughout that there has to be a mechanism by which the force of the law can be moderated in cases where it is clear to the court that it is not dealing with a person bent on criminality or using that firearm. Clearly, he may be either innocuous or a little foolish and naive in having it around his house because it is a family relic, or there may be other extenuating circumstances.
	I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that it is far too early to say, on what is effectively the Bill's Second Reading, whether there are sufficient proper mechanisms—I should perhaps not say loopholes—by which the court may temper the rigour of the law. They must be there. If they are not, the provision will be rapidly brought into disrepute, and it will not have the intended virtue that is sought by the Home Secretary.
	As I said to the Home Secretary, we do not intend to vote against the proposal, but we will certainly give it the most detailed scrutiny in another place and it may be amended. If it is, I hope that he considers that pragmatically and that, if he thinks that there has been an improvement, he accepts those amendments. I do not intend to take up more of the House's time. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the way in which he presented these matters.

Neil Turner: I support Government new clause 39 on dangerous driving. Last night, I presented a petition to the House on behalf of Frank Round and Paula Sharrock, the father and sister of Kerry Adamson, who was killed as a result of dangerous driving. The petition was signed by 21,000 people in the Wigan area, which shows the depth of concern about the sentence passed.
	The facts of the case are clear. There was a fracas in a pub, which spilled out into the street. Mr. Daniel Beeston Rose got into a car. He drove straight at Kerry Adamson and dragged her for a quarter of a mile, breaking both her arms and her leg, and almost severing her ear. She suffered horrendous friction burns. He then fled the scene without giving any assistance or seeing whether Kerry's life could be saved. He did not give himself up for over three days, in which time, of course, there was no possibility of the police proving whether he had been drinking or taking drugs.
	Initially, Mr. Daniel Beeston Rose was charged with murder, but the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence for the charge, which was dropped and replaced with one of manslaughter. That was also replaced by a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, as he indicated that he would plead guilty. The family agreed to that, on an understanding from the CPS that the 10-year maximum was equivalent to the sentence that he would have received for manslaughter. There was no trial, however, and the family felt that they had no opportunity to put their case.
	The judge took account of all the alleged positive factors in favour of the defendant, but no obvious account of those that went against him. For instance, the judge wanted him to return to work, yet he took no account of the fact that this person had been sacked for stealing. The judge wanted him to return to his partner and child, yet he took no account of the fact that this person had already fathered other children and had since left his new partner and their child. He accepted that this person did not see Kerry Adamson, yet there was forensic evidence that her palm prints were on the bonnet of the car. He took no account of this person's previous convictions, or of the fact that he had left the scene. The sentence passed was two years, one of which was suspended.
	We have to recognise the consequences. Clearly, Kerry Adamson died—her life was cut short. But it was worse than that. Her husband is now a widower, and her children Daniel and Tamzin are left motherless. This is not a one-victim crime; it affects the whole family, traumatising them dramatically. The family understand that nothing will bring Kerry back, but they want to ensure that theirs is a positive campaign with a positive result. They want to ensure that sentencing sends the clear message to everybody that society does not accept that the death of a fellow human being is in any way acceptable. Those committing such an offence have to be taken out of society because they pose a danger, as was said earlier, and to ensure that others are deterred from acting in this way. If we can achieve that, we will prevent other families from going through the same trauma that Kerry Adamson's family have experienced.
	My constituents' campaign has been a success: we have new clause 39, which increases the maximum sentence from 10 years to 14 years. The Government and Parliament have heard their pleas and those of many Members on both sides of the House, some of whose constituents have had similar experiences; however, it is also essential that the courts recognise them. In Kerry's case, the sentence could have been 10 years, but in effect it was one year. If raising the maximum by 40 per cent. ensures that the sentences imposed are increased only by 40 per cent., in Kerry's case the killer would have been out in less than a year and a half. People would still have felt that the sentence given was inadequate in the extreme. If that is all that happens, the victory of my constituents and those of other Members will be extremely hollow.
	The petition that I presented last night called not only for the sentences to be increased, but for the courts to recognise that they are available and that use should be made of the increased maximum. I hope that the Home Secretary will impress upon the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the entire court system the view of this Parliament. We want the sentences to be increased, but we also want the courts to make full use of them, so that when people such as Kerry die, those who commit such offences are properly punished. They should not be left, like Kerry Adamson's killer, with just a year to serve. He was thereby able to come out and, in effect, laugh at the courts and at her family, leaving them totally dismayed, disgusted and feeling let down by the way in which the courts handled their case.

Simon Hughes: In following the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), I should point out that on reaching Report, my hon. Friends and I tabled new clause 9, which called for the maximum penalty for dangerous driving to be increased to 14 years. We were therefore very pleased to discover that the Government followed our suggestion in respect of those who cause death through that means of aggression. Others made that suggestion too—we do not claim it in any party political way—but I should point out that we have been very clear on this matter, collectively and personally.
	I am among those in this House who have been too close to families in this position. I pay tribute, as other colleagues have done, to the way in which such families have made their own grief and tragedy a public policy matter. My constituents, Christine and Jim Bradford, lost their 14-year-old son, whom I knew; indeed, I had recently presented prizes to and spoken to him, and enjoyed his company. Through RoadPeace and other organisations, the Bradfords and others have ensured that we cannot run away from this issue, and we are not doing so.
	The Home Office advised at the beginning of the Bill's passage that we could not add such a clause because it was outwith the Bill's purview, so I am relieved to discover that that advice has been reviewed. The Home Office now accepts that it can be included, as some of us said from the beginning that it should. So there is joy over the collective sinner that repenteth and see'eth the wisdom of their ways.

Tom Watson: It is heartening that there is a degree of consensus in the House on this issue. We have all been touched by great personal tragedies in our constituencies and regions. Indeed, in our region, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Evening Mail has run the "Justice for Isobel" campaign. All such families who see us united today will be pleased that we are taking this action.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. This is an issue that can and should unite us. This measure should provide great consolation to those who have suffered personally through seeing people act criminally and get away with it, because they will know that it will not happen again. Indeed, you and others well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the benefit that it will provide if we get it right.

David Kidney: What about the other half of the equation that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) mentioned? When judges have a higher maximum sentence, they still use nothing like it.

Simon Hughes: That raises the general issue about what we do and what judges should do, which I shall come to shortly. My hon. Friends and I take the view that it is for Parliament to set the maximum sentence, and for the courts to use their discretion about what sentence to impose. However, it is fair to say that courts reflect, by and large, the view of a society from which judges, too, come. Thank goodness, it is now possible to appeal against a lenient sentence to make sure that inconsistent leniency will not disadvantage a victim's family.
	I turn to the final issue that flows from the speech of the hon. Member for Wigan, and which is a concern for us all. Through this legislation, we are, I hope, trying to ensure that we get the balance right in terms of what judges and magistrates can do. We need to ensure that the mechanisms exist for maximum consistency, but there must also be the maximum ability to reflect the individual circumstances of a particular case, because each case is different.
	I will not elaborate on the point, but I share the fundamental objections to the process that have been expressed. We have a two-and-a-half hour debate on four substantive subjects: the setting of tariffs for murder cases—a huge and complex subject, as speeches from Labour and Conservative Front Benchers have shown—mandatory sentences in general, dangerous driving and firearms. It is unacceptable for elected Members of Parliament first to come to these matters on Report, rather than in Committee.
	I share the Home Secretary's view that we do nobody a service by having a histrionic and aggressive debate on these matters. They are serious and difficult, and all of us want to get the balance right between punishing those who commit serious offences, protecting the public from their reoffending, rehabilitating offenders so that they do not offend again, and tempering justice with mercy. Behind all of that lies a desire to reduce violence in our society, which is at far too high a level and is often fuelled, it may be said, by drugs in general and alcohol in particular. They are the cause of many of these offences.
	I share absolutely the view of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that we must not sentence by reflex. Getting sentencing right is a deliberative process in the light of experience. It is clear that Parliament has needed to come back to this issue since capital punishment was abolished. We put in place a mandatory life sentence for murder for an obvious reason: to give the public the consolation that there would be a serious punishment for what previously might have resulted in the death penalty.
	Without wishing to be rude, Madam Deputy Speaker, you, like me, will remember—although we were both young at the time—that a major debate took place during our early years about whether there should have been two types of homicide and a different penalty for culpable homicide; indeed, that debate rages in the United States to this day. In setting out three types of murder, the Government proposal categorises murder in a simplistic way. The advice of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the judiciary is that is impossible to classify murders in that way. It is right to have a maximum sentence, which Parliament should set but, since I have been in the House, Liberal Democrats have opposed Parliament setting a mandatory sentence—in our book, that applies to murder, too.
	On Saturday, I read in the paper about someone who was given a non-custodial sentence for murder because he had murdered his parents, who were both ill and disturbed and had been violent towards him for many years. He was driven to kill them in desperation. We believe that sentencing must reflect the difference between someone who commits a sadistic, violent, aggressive and unprovoked killing and the person who is provoked over a period of years, eventually snapping and taking someone's life. I share the Home Secretary's view that we need something that achieves, in his words, clarity and consistency, and gives confidence. Although our view is different from the Government's we do not disagree about those principles.
	We also agree that we need to reflect the views of our communities. What is said in court is sometimes not what happens in reality—what you hear is not always what you get. I strongly advocate that the sentence set by the judge must be the sentence that is served. Under the proposals, it would be explained carefully to an offender that he will receive a sentence of 20 years, half of which will be served in prison and half outside. If they misbehave when they are outside, they will go back inside. That does not mean that they will serve all their time inside, but they should understand what sentence they are being given. I therefore subscribe to the view that a sentence of life imprisonment means life imprisonment—if it does not, we should not say that it is life imprisonment. We need that clarity to give people confidence. When I was a youngster, I remember that someone was given life imprisonment but, not many years later, they were walking around the village. In such cases, people's confidence in the system is undermined, so I hope that the provision will provide such clarity.
	A judge might tell a defendant, "You will serve a minimum of 10 years," or that part of the sentence will be served in custody and part outside. I look forward to the day when we carry the public with us in showing that prison is a softer option than a sentence in the community. Prison is often quite a soft option—it is not a hard option at all, because everything is done for people and they do not have to think at all. Going out into the community and having to work for rehabilitation is often much more difficult.
	There is another way in which we can ensure consistency. I do not claim the authorship of this proposal—it appeared recently in an article by Louis Blom-Cooper. We could make sure in every murder case that the prosecution has the right of appeal if it thinks that the sentence is too low. We could provide that safeguard to guarantee consistency.
	Liberal Democrats will vote against the new clause, as I have made clear to Ministers, because we believe that, although Parliament should set the principles, it should not prescribe the minimum number of years to be served for certain offences. Indeed, the statement that the Home Office issued on 25 November last year, after the court case that ruled that the Home Secretaries of the future should not be able to set tariffs, talked about Parliament setting the principles, not sentences. Things have moved on, in our view, in an unhelpful way. We share the view of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, who has maintained in Committee and on Report that the Sentencing Guidelines Council, together with some indirect parliamentary representation, whether through Government nomination, representatives of the three major parties or in another form, should set the guidelines for murder, as well as for driving and firearms offences—the three specific offences for which we are legislating in this debate.
	Parliament should therefore set the principles, not the specifics, of sentencing, It should set the maximum sentence, but it is not for politicians to announce what sentences will be, nor is that a matter for the press. There should be guidance on sentencing, and specific sentences should left to the discretion of the court. We share the view of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and many others that the proposals will, in fact, result in sentences being ratcheted up—that is another reason why we will vote against the new clause. There will be many more life sentences, 30-year sentences and 15-year sentences, contrary to all the advice that has been given. That was why I questioned the Home Secretary, who may not have been asked formally to agree with the Sentencing Advisory Panel last year. However, I understand that he was consulted on the practice direction issued in May to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) alluded. I understand that the Home Office had not previously objected to the advice that was given. I also understand that since the court cases at the end of last year no consultation has achieved consensus with the judiciary—if I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. The proposal categorising who will get life, 30 years and 15 years is a political one—it is not a proposal agreed by the Home Office and the judiciary.
	We must question whether that is right. In this country, we already have a disproportionate number of prisoners serving life sentences—5,352 in England and Wales in February this year, a considerable rise on the figure of 3,092 in 1992. The current number is proportionately higher than that of any other country in western Europe, and is the third highest in Europe as a whole. There must be a logic or argument justifying our actions if we are going to continue putting more people in prison for life. There must be an evidence base—we have not had one yet—and, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) told the Home Secretary, there must be the opportunity of a new start for most people. Most people, we must assume, are capable of rehabilitation and can start again.
	The proposals are objectionable in their current form. May I tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that the term "life sentence" is not reasonable if it means entirely different things for different people? A 70-year-old and a 21-year-old who receive a life sentence will clearly not receive the same sentence, so the proposals are inappropriate. Under the proposals, the starting point for the sadistic murder of a child is a 30-year sentence. Why is that not applicable to the sadistic murder of a pensioner or someone with a learning or physical disability? The distinction is an invidious one. A particularly high tariff is suggested for the murder of a police officer. I accept the argument, but why not such a tariff for the murder of a nurse, a teacher or another public servant in the front line? The distinction is invidious.
	The starting tariff for young people is miles off current practice and experience. When I checked the figures on prisoners released in 2000 who had been sentenced as juveniles, I found that the average minimum term was 10.8 years; the average time served after sentencing was 13.9 years; the longest time served after sentence was 20 years and the longest minimum term 16 years. Those figures are out of proportion. Sentence recommendations in the past were based on the notion that—for reasons on which others have elaborated—the younger someone is sentenced, the shorter should be the expectation of serving time. The Government are proposing to sign up to the European arrest warrant, but under those proposals, endorsed by the Government, every life sentence must be reviewable throughout Europe after 20 years.
	The objections are fundamental and we will have to return to the issue. I sense from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that there may be some common ground in establishing principles, but not on the specific number of years proposed. We will work with other parties to reach common ground, which should unite the judiciary and, I hope, a much broader base of politicians and public opinion.

Dominic Grieve: There is certainly common ground on some of the principles, but I agree that it is more difficult in respect of the specific figures. It is possible that one figure may not be the correct approach. It might be better to have a bracket and list possibilities of departure from that bracket. That could be another way of approaching the problem.

Simon Hughes: I am entirely willing to have such a debate, but it should have happened long since and we should have sought to reach agreement much sooner. It is always better when some form of agreement is evident, as opposed to highly divergent views.
	We cannot vote in the present group of amendments—we will try later—on new clause 7, which proposes that there should never be mandatory sentences. That makes our views on firearms offences closer to the position that the Government have currently arrived at, rather than what they said they would arrive at. I understand why the Government wish to sound tough, particularly after the killings of the two poor young women in Birmingham. Far too many people have been shot dead in my constituency. I had previously known some of them and have had to cope with family difficulties afterwards.
	I am well aware of how evil firearms violence can be, but there is no more logic in having a mandatory fixed minimum term for that than for any other offence. A person who carries a gun, given by a cousin, for 10 seconds while he runs into a shop and subsequently has no more contact with that gun no more merits a minimum five-year sentence than someone who also plays a minor subsidiary role in what may or may not be a serious criminal enterprise. A person who goes out with a gun intending to shoot someone deserves a much higher sentence. The punishment should always fit the crime. If the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham presses his amendments, which would allow justice to temper the hard-line proposal, we would support him because we believe that the courts should have flexibility, not a prescriptive starting point.

Lady Hermon: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, I invite him to reflect on experience in Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement included a provision whereby prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment were freed very early, having served only the bare minimum in prison. That did huge damage to the community's confidence in the Belfast agreement. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that life should mean life?

Simon Hughes: Under the present regime in the mainland, which I understand still applies in Northern Ireland, when someone is given a life sentence, the judge quite often does not set a minimum. That allows the decision to be deferred. It might turn out to be a life sentence. Unless it is decided that the prisoner poses no risk to the community, they will not be released. I support the position that a sentence be set, but where there is uncertainty about how long is necessary before it is safe to release someone, the power should be reserved to the court. The court—not the parole board, people hidden away behind closed doors, or officials out of public view—has to hear the evidence and decide whether it is appropriate to release someone. If the judge who made the original sentence is not alive or unavailable, another judge can decide. The hon. Lady and I may not be that far apart. In some cases, no tariff will be fixed because it is inappropriate to do so. Unless it is safe to release someone later, they will have to remain in prison. However few cases there may be, the power should always be reserved to the court.
	I conclude by discussing driving issues. I have already said that we greatly support Government new clause 39, which is broadly in line with our new clause 9. We are not going to press it to the vote, but I ask the Government to reflect favourably on our amendment (a) to new clause 39.
	I end where I started—by drawing on my personal experience of death by dangerous driving court cases. Currently, people can be prosecuted for having no insurance or other easily provable offences. However, such cases are triable only in the magistrates court, and unless proceedings are initiated within six months they cannot be initiated at all. Often no charge is brought in such cases. I ask the Government to ensure that, if death follows as a result of driving offences, the six-month time bar be removed. They should also make it possible for charges to be heard in either the magistrates court or the High Court. We could then assess what happened in the round and not deprive people of justice by a time rule. I understand the history of it, but it is acting against the justice of individual cases. I hope that the Government are sympathetic to that view: we will work with them, even though we disagree on other important issues in the debate.

Andrew Miller: Before I speak to new clause 39, I wish to put the record straight for the benefit of Conservative Members who mentioned my late father. He was well known to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) because they served on the town council together and the hon. Gentleman will attest that my father was quite a character. This could perhaps be described as a leak inside the Conservative party, but my father had a wartime relic, which I discovered in his possession when he died. Rather than have my mother worry about it, I removed it from the premises and under the amnesty introduced by the present Government, I asked a police officer whether I should hand it in. I partly agree with point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in that the weapon could not be fired. Like any tube of steel, it could have been converted into something that could fire, but it could not fire as it was. That poses serious questions about the state of weapons in those narrow circumstances. Making exemptions is a problem because it could create a loophole. However, the only offence that my late father committed was being a member of the Conservative party—and even I would not give him five years for that!
	In common with hon. Members throughout the House, I welcome new clause 39. The road police believe that some matters should be taken considerably further. I have always believed that the best way to proceed is to create a charge of death by driving, as opposed to what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) proposed a few moments ago. One of the absurdities, of course, is that cases in which a death has occurred are often dealt with by the magistrates court, but the fact of a death or serious injury is not even reported to the court. The Lord Chancellor has given guidance to magistrates courts on that point, but the news is not getting through.
	Some have argued that provisions to extend sentences in cases of death by driving are an example of the nanny state at its worst, but that is not the case. Having discussed the issue with many families who have been bereaved, I see it as the House's responsibility to provide some leadership on the issue. That is what the clause will do. The motor car is one of the world's most serious killers, and I speak as someone with a constituency in which motorcars are made. We all use them, and we want them to be a safe and effective mode of transport, but—like any other potential weapon—they can be deadly in the wrong hands. The cases include not only momentary lapses of attention but serious acts of recklessness—so serious that those involved must have known that their actions, just before or during the offence, were likely to kill. Those people need to be dealt with most severely. We cannot fall back on the kinds of excuses that society has accepted for far too long when it comes to the motor car, such as, "We are all drivers, and we all make mistakes," or "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Those are not acceptable excuses, especially for those people who kill under the influence of drink or drugs, or who drive at ludicrous speeds, such as those we read about from time to time.
	When I intervened in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I pointed out that for once we should put the rights of victims first. A network of obsolete regulations governs the conduct of road traffic law, and most fail to put the victims first. I tabled a question for written answer a couple of weeks ago that sought to tease out from Ministers in the Home Office the absurdity of a situation in which a defendant in a case of death on the road is entitled to copies of all documents collected by the police when adducing evidence, but that some police forces have the gall to charge the families of victims for the documents. That is an absurd injustice that cannot be allowed to continue. The House should take a leadership role and deal with that and many such issues.
	I welcome new clause 39 as a step in the right direction. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the final comment by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, because in the absence of the creation of a charge of death by driving—my suggestion to address all the problems involved—his point remains valid and is worthy of examination.

Tom Watson: Like my hon. Friend, I agree with the proposal from the Liberal Democrats—a lifelong first for both of us—and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider it.

Andrew Miller: It is a rare occurrence, but on this issue I have discussed many cases with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and we have reached a consensus. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to the spirit of consensus that has emerged around the debate, and to act accordingly. The Home Office is in better hands than ever before, with the appointment of my hon. Friend, and I know that he will do a good job and listen to the representations from both sides of the House.

Douglas Hogg: I shall concentrate on the issues of firearms and the life sentence tariffs. However, I also echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the undesirability of the timetable. It has grouped a range of measures together, which are all important, and many right hon. and hon. Members will not have time to speak to them. Nor will we have time to vote on them, and that is a lamentable way in which to carry out our parliamentary business.
	I have the advantage of some hon. Members in that I have both represented many murderers and, for some two years as an Under-Secretary at the Home Office, I was responsible for setting the life sentence tariffs. Indeed, because my predecessor did not do many of them, I set more than 600. I have probably set more tariffs than any other Minister who has ever held office, but it is not a process that I would recommend. Although I performed the task with a degree of enthusiasm, I believed that it was not one for Ministers. I am glad that the courts have said that tariff setting should be done by judges, not Ministers. It was a denial of justice done by Ministers. It was done privately, without appeal, supervision or review. It was done without representation and, in my view, it offended every canon of justice that one can readily bring to mind. The decision to do away with the process is long overdue. I thought that when I did it, and I think it even more robustly now.
	Have the Government taken the correct approach to the tariff? It is, of course, the penalty imposed by the court for the offence. It is a punishment, and as such I welcome the fact that a right of appeal has been included in respect of the determination of the minimum term and that the judge will be obliged to state his reasons for setting it or departing from it. I tabled amendments to that effect, and the Government's provisions achieve the same end.
	A prisoner is not automatically released on expiration of the tariff period. In any event, he is released only on licence, if he satisfies the requirement on public safety. It is worth remembering that the Lord Chief Justice made it clear in his practice direction, issued last year, that the majority of life sentence prisoners are not released at the expiration of the minimum term but at some later date. The Lord Chief Justice also made the important point that a tariff is, generally speaking, the equivalent of a determinate sentence of twice the length. A tariff of 14 years is the equivalent of a determinate sentence of 28 years, and a tariff of 30 years is the equivalent of a determinate sentence of 60 years. We need to keep that in mind when we are deciding the appropriate tariff in each case.
	I want to say a word about murder. Again, I emphasise that I have represented many murderers, although not as many as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), and I suspect that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has also represented more than I have. However, I have represented enough of them and, as I said, I have also set the tariffs.
	Murder is not a homogeneous class of offence. It covers offences from the most bestial to those which, broadly speaking, are little more than assaults. In my experience, many murders are not intended at all. They happen because of loss of control, or through panic or surprise, or because a person has been taken unawares. All those factors can be involved, and many murders are simply the unintended consequences of action, which fall within the judicial definition. We have to keep that in mind when it comes to sentencing, as we need to have a high degree of flexibility in order to do justice.
	That brings me to last May's practice direction, when the Lord Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal set out the guidance that the Lord Chief Justice wished to be observed. The starting point was 12 years, rising to 15 or 16 years in due time, then to 20 years, with sentences of 30 years, or whole-life sentences, to be set very occasionally. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that guidance. I want to know why we are trying to subject the judiciary to a straitjacket imposed by Parliament. I cannot find a reason for that.
	The intended effect and purpose of the Bill is to drive the life sentence tariffs up, and to constrain the judiciary. I see absolutely no justification for that. It will certainly not reduce the number of murders, which have remained broadly constant these past 15 years. It may make people feel good, but that is a wholly different matter.
	What is more, the proposal will cause injustice, as the case of Tony Martin shows. I am not a particular sympathiser of Tony Martin, but let us assume for a moment that his conviction for murder had been sustained, and not quashed. On any view, Tony Martin's offence was at a relatively low level of culpability in the context of murder. However, under this Bill, the starting point for his sentence would have been 30 years, because he used a firearm. What justice lies in that?
	Another example, which I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, had to do with the killers of James Bulger. They were very young at the time, but under new schedule 2 the starting point for their sentences would be 30 years. What is the justice in that? Once one begins to look at the Government's approach to the matter one sees, not only that there is no justification for it, but that it will certainly do injustice in some cases—or that it will make no difference whatsoever, in which case it is otiose.
	I turn now to firearms. I am deeply opposed to mandatory sentences, as a general proposition, yet the Bill introduces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for firearms possession. We can highlight injustices in various ways, and the sentence covers, for example, the possession of a range of souvenirs from the second world war.
	My father-in-law had a revolver and ammunition right up to the moment of his death, at the age of 94. His justification was that he was a reserve officer of the Crown. There is no way for one to argue exceptional circumstances in respect of a man who has chosen to have a handgun in his wardrobe for 50 years. What possible exceptional circumstance could there be?
	My father—a very law-abiding man—had as his doorstop an artillery shell. I never inquired whether it had the necessary fuses but, knowing him, I should not have been surprised in the least if it had. That would have been another case of a mandatory five-year sentence—imposed on a former Lord Chancellor.
	In addition, lots of people have Sten guns, grenades and this and that from their wartime circumstances. They are not going to be able to argue exceptional circumstances: they will face the minimum five-year term. There is no justice in that, yet it is the inevitable consequence of this House trying to take unto itself the power to impose minimum sentences.
	The real truth is that we should leave these matters to the judiciary. Its members have ample powers of sentencing already; they are guided by the Court of Appeal and, in appropriate circumstances, the Attorney-General can refer a case if there has been an under-sentence. Let us not take to ourselves a power that we cannot properly exercise, which is unnecessary in itself and which will certainly do injustice.

Vera Baird: I accept new clause 30 in principle, but I want to raise the troublesome case, under the proposed new tariff, of battered women who kill their violent partners; for example, the famous cases of women such as Emma Humphreys and Sara Thornton.
	There is a pattern to such cases. Classically, a woman marries a man who is perfectly fine but who, at some stage, takes to drink. He becomes simultaneously controlling of her and dependent on her. He keeps her subservient by regular beatings, which she simply tolerates. She feels unable to leave because her children would be thrown into poverty if they went with her, and she cannot leave them behind; because her husband might follow her anyway; or because she simply lacks the will to go.
	Such situations can run on for many years but they usually come to a head when the man attacks the woman and she realises that some difference makes that attack slightly more serious. Again, there is a pattern. She usually retreats into the kitchen. He follows to attack and she seizes a kitchen knife and stabs him once.
	Sometimes, provocation will reduce such a case to manslaughter, but often, because that offence is specifically drawn, it cannot be provocation. The man is attacking the woman with his fists, but she stabs him with a knife so although, in truth, that is self-defence, it is not proportionate; and excessive self-defence is murder. I suggest that it should be open to a jury to find that, in certain cases, excessive self-defence ought not to be murder.
	It is important to review that aspect of the law on behalf of that category of women. Someone who has reacted, or even overreacted, in the circumstances brought about by an attack, when they are likely to be acting in the grip of fear, panic or even anger—sentiments imposed on them by another person's conduct—probably ought not to be convicted of murder if they failed to measure, within some bounds, the amount of force to be used. Failure to react proportionately in such a situation is really the fault of the attacker, so excessive self-defence ought to be mitigated to manslaughter.
	Battered women are victims of that mismatch in the criminal law. All too often, they are convicted of murder through excessive self-defence. Even before they get to that stage, they are, of course, already victims of repeated domestic violence, of which no one approves. There is now concern that they may become the victims of a new, too-high tariff for such responses.
	Will those women fall within the boundaries of the exceptional circumstances provision? As I have indicated that there is a pattern to such cases, it is clear that they are not isolated. Probably eight or more women a year react in that way, which must be compared and contrasted with the fact that two women a week are killed by their violent male partner in the course of domestic violence. None the less, I have some questions.
	Granted that there is a pattern and that such cases are not isolated, could it be a proper use of the exceptional circumstances provision to allow the setting of lower tariffs for women who act in excessive self-defence after a history of domestic violence? Ministers on the Treasury Bench are well aware that they can influence the way in which the judiciary implements law by making statements in the House, under the Pepper v. Hart rule, to avoid ambiguity. It lies in the hands of Ministers to say today that it would be a proper exercise of discretion to allow exceptional circumstances in the cases of battered women who have killed in the way that I described, usually by a single blow in the heat of domestic violence. Can Ministers consider that point? If they cannot consider making such an expression today, will they seriously reconsider the position of battered women who have killed, in the light of the proposed, and otherwise entirely appropriate, introduction of a 15-year tariff for a single murder?

Paul Goggins: I thank all right hon. and hon. members for their contribution to this important debate. Indeed, I am already learning that, on both sides of the House, there are strong feelings and a wealth of knowledge on these issues. I was struck—as was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—by the question from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who asked why the minimum sentences for possessing firearms will relate only to prohibited firearms. The answer is that, generally, non-prohibited firearms are not used by criminals, but the hon. Gentleman asked an interesting question and there will be further opportunities for scrutiny in another place.
	My first point is that Parliament is not breaking new ground in setting minimum and mandatory sentences for certain offences. In doing so, Parliament is simply asserting its legitimate role in relation to extremely serious matters.
	A number of contributions have related to tragic deaths caused by dangerous driving. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), for Wigan (Mr. Turner) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) have mentioned a number of cases, and I know of one from my constituency: a young boy, Geoffrey Foy, was mown down by a driver who had no insurance.

Jim Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Goggins: I really do not have time to give way, I am afraid. I have very limited time.
	I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will warmly welcome the fact that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport have announced a full review of road traffic offences. I can reassure the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that the most appropriate mode of trial will be examined in that review.
	The Anderson case removed the Home Secretary's power to set the minimum term, and it is now the right time, therefore, for Parliament to set out its own views on sentencing in a way that is not only fair to the convicted person but recognises the seriousness of the offence. We all recognise the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who has just arrived back in his place. He was persistent, if not necessarily persuasive, in the arguments that he used in relation to the Sentencing Guidelines Council. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talk about the practical impossibility of some of his proposals, but I hope that he took seriously the point about such matters being so serious that Parliament needs to make its position clear.
	My second point is to say in the strongest terms that the Government are not attempting to straitjacket the judges with regard to every case. I say that very strongly, particularly perhaps to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Obviously, each case and each offender is different, and it is right that the system reflects that.
	Again, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked some interesting questions about how the provisions apply to juveniles, for whom we would all have greater hope in relation to the possibility and desirability of rehabilitation. The provisions already contain scope for flexibility—for example, age is included in the list of mitigating factors—but he made some very powerful points in his speech, and we shall continue to consider them.
	It is important to emphasise that new schedule 2 does not include mandatory minimum sentences for each category of murder, but provides a starting point that can be varied, up or down, according to circumstances. The starting point for most murders will be 15 years. For the murder of a prison officer or a police officer, it will be 30 years. The starting point for terrorists and those who abduct and murder children will be whole life. Those levels reflect the seriousness of the offence and provide a robust framework in which judges will have discretion to reflect individual circumstances. I hope that the House agrees that that represents a fair balance.
	My third point is central to the Bill. All Members of Parliament feel that there is a need to restore full public confidence in the criminal justice system. Public opinion is understandably strong on the types of offence that we have been discussing this afternoon, and it is vital that the public's voice is heard and that it resonates in our debates. Judges play a crucial role in the service of our communities, but they are not directly accountable. Members of parliament are directly accountable, and if we do not voice our constituents' legitimate concerns, how are they to have their say?
	We do not have mob rule in this country; we live in a democracy and our constituents have a right to be heard. My constituents and those of many hon. Members certainly demand that the severity of sentence outlined in these provisions is put into law and put into practice at the earliest opportunity. The ultimate price is absolutely precious to all of us. If we get the balance right—if people are heard and Parliament establishes a robust framework in which the judges have the final say—not only will Parliament's credibility be strengthened, but so too will the credibility of the judges and the wider criminal justice system.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 52.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Orders [4 February, 5 March, 2 April and 19 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 31
	 — 
	Duty to Give Reasons

'(1) Any court making an order under subsection (2) or (4) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) must state in open court, in ordinary language, its reasons for deciding on the order made.
	(2) In stating its reasons the court must, in particular—
	(a) state which of the starting points in Schedule (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) it has chosen and its reasons for doing so, and
	(b) state its reasons for any departure from that starting point.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32
	 — 
	Appeals

'In section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) (appeal against sentence following conviction on indictment), after subsection (1) there is inserted—
	"(1A) In subsection (1) of this section, the reference to a sentence fixed by law does not include a reference to an order made under subsection (2) or (4) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in relation to a life sentence (as defined in section (Interpretation of Chapter) of that Act), that is fixed by law.".'.
	—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33
	 — 
	Review of Minimum Term on Reference by Attorney General

'In section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33) (reviews of sentencing) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	"(3A) Where a reference under this section relates to an order under subsection (2) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence), the Court of Appeal shall not, in deciding what order under that section is appropriate for the case, make any allowance for the fact that the person to whom it relates is being sentenced for a second time.".'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34
	 — 
	Life Prisoners Transferred to England and Wales

'(1) The Secretary of State must refer the case of any transferred life prisoner to the High Court for the making of a relevant order.
	(2) In subsection (1) "transferred life prisoner" means a person—
	(a) on whom a court in a country or territory outside the British Islands has imposed one or more sentences of imprisonment or detention for an indeterminate period, and
	(b) who has been transferred to England and Wales after the commencement of this section in pursuance of—
	(i) an order made by the Secretary of State under section 2 of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884 (c. 31), or
	(ii) a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c. 47),
	there to serve his sentence or sentences or the remainder of his sentence or sentences.
	(3) In subsection (1) "a relevant order" means—
	(a) in a case where the prisoner's offence or offences appear to the court to be or include an offence for which, if it had been committed in England and Wales, the sentence would have been fixed by law, an order under subsection (2) or (4) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence), and
	(b) in any other case, an order under subsection (2) or (4) of section 82A of the Sentencing Act.
	(4) In section 34(1) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (meaning of "life prisoner" in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of that Act) at the end there is inserted "and includes a transferred life prisoner as defined by section (Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales)(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003".'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 35
	 — 
	Further Provisions About References Relating to Transferred Life Prisoners

'(1) A reference to the High Court under section (Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales) is to be determined by a single judge of that court without an oral hearing.
	(2) In relation to a reference under that section, any reference to "the court" in subsections (2) to (5) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence), in Schedule (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) or in section 82A(2) to (4) of the Sentencing Act is to be read as a reference to the High Court.
	(3) A person in respect of whom a reference has been made under section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) may with the leave of the Court of Appeal appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court on the reference.
	(4) Section 1(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c.65) (appeal to House of Lords from decision of High Court in a criminal cause or matter) and section 18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c.54) (exclusion of appeal from High Court to Court of Appeal in a criminal cause or matter) do not apply in relation to a decision to which subsection (3) applies.
	(5) The jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Appeal by subsection (3) is to be exercised by the criminal division of that court.
	(6) Section 33(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (limitation on appeal from criminal division of Court of Appeal) does not prevent an appeal to the House of Lords under this section.
	(7) In relation to appeals to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords under this section, the Secretary of State may make an order containing provision corresponding to any provision in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) (subject to any specified modifications).'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 36
	 — 
	Duty to Release Certain Life Prisoners

'(1) Section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43) (duty to release certain life prisoners) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (1A) there is substituted—
	"(1A) In this Chapter—
	(a) references to a life prisoner to whom this section applies are references to a life prisoner in respect of whom a minimum term order has been made, and
	(b) references to the relevant part of his sentence are references to the part of his sentence specified in the order.".
	(3) In subsection (1B)(a), for the words from "such an order" to "appropriate stage" there is substituted "a minimum term order has been made in respect of each of those sentences".
	(4) After subsection (8) there is inserted—
	"(8A) In this section "minimum term order" means an order under—
	(a) subsection (2) of section 82A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (determination of minimum term in respect of life sentence that is not fixed by law), or
	(b) subsection (2) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (determination of minimum term in respect of mandatory life sentence).".'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 37
	 — 
	Mandatory Life Sentences: Transitional Cases

'Schedule (Mandatory life sentences: transitional cases) (which relates to the effect in transitional cases of mandatory life sentences) shall have effect.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 38
	 — 
	Interpretation of Chapter

'In this Chapter—
	"court" includes a courtmartial;
	"guidelines" has the same meaning as in section 156(1);
	"life sentence" means—
	a sentence of imprisonment for life, a sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure, or
	a sentence of custody for life passed before the commencement of section 61(1) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (which abolishes that sentence).'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 39
	 — 
	Increase in Penalties for Certain Drivingrelated Offences Causing Death

'(1) In section 12A of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) (aggravated vehicletaking), in subsection (4), for 'five years' there is substituted 'fourteen years'.
	(2) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (prosecution and punishment of offences) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).
	(3) In the entry relating to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (causing death by dangerous driving), in column 4, for "10 years" there is substituted "14 years".
	(4) In the entry relating to section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs), in column 4, for "10 years" there is substituted "14 years".
	(5) This section does not affect the penalty for any offence committed before the commencement of this section.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46
	 — 
	Minimum Sentence for Certain Firearms Offences

'After section 51 of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) there is inserted the following section—
	"51A Minimum sentence for certain offences under s.5
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) an individual is convicted of—
	(i) an offence under section 5(1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae) or (c) of this Act, or
	(ii) an offence under section 5(1A)(a) of this Act, and
	(b) the offence was committed after the commencement of this section and at a time when he was aged 16 or over.
	(2) The court shall impose an appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention) for a term of at least the required minimum term (with or without a fine) unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so.
	(3) Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two or more days, it shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have been committed on the last of those days.
	(4) In this section "appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention)" means—
	(a) in relation to England and Wales—
	(i) in the case of an offender who is aged 18 or over when convicted, a sentence of imprisonment, and
	(ii) in the case of an offender who is aged under 18 at that time, a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000;
	(b) in relation to Scotland—
	(i) in the case of an offender who is aged 21 or over when convicted, a sentence of imprisonment,
	(ii) in the case of an offender who is aged under 21 at that time (not being an offender mentioned in subparagraph (iii)), a sentence of detention under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46), and
	(iii) in the case of an offender who is aged under 18 at that time and is subject to a supervision requirement, an order for detention under section 44, or sentence of detention under section 208, of that Act.
	(5) In this section "the required minimum term" means—
	(a) in relation to England and Wales—
	(i) in the case of an offender who was aged 18 or over when he committed the offence, five years, and
	(ii) in the case of an offender who was under 18 at that time, three years, and
	(b) in relation to Scotland—
	(i) in the case of an offender who was aged 21 or over when he committed the offence, five years, and
	(ii) in the case of an offender who was aged under 21 at that time, three years.".'—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 47
	 — 
	Certain Firearms Offences to be Triable Only on Indictment

'In Part 1 of Schedule 6 to the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) (prosecution and punishment of offences) for the entries relating to offences under section 5(1) (possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition) and section 5(1A) (possessing or distributing other prohibited weapons) there is substituted—
	
		
			   
			  "Section 5(1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae) or (c) Possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition. On indictment 10 years or a fine, or both. 
			 Section 5(1)(b) Possessing or distributing prohibited weapon designed for discharge of noxious liquid etc. (a) Summary (b) Onindictment 6 months or a fine of the statutory maximum, or both 10 years or a fine, or both. 
			 Section 5(1A)(a) Possessing or distributing firearm disguised as other object. On indictment 10 years or a fine, or both. 
			 Section 5(1A)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) Possessing or distributing other prohibited weapons. (a) Summary (b) On indictment 6 months or a fine of the statutory maximum, or both 10 years or a fine, or both.".'— 
		
	
	[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 48
	 — 
	Power to Sentence Young Offender to Detention in Respect of Certain Firearms Offences: England and Wales

'(1) Section 91 of the Sentencing Act (offenders under 18 convicted of certain serious offences: power to detain for specified period) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1) there is inserted—
	"(1A) Subsection (3) below also applies where—
	(a) a person aged under 18 is convicted on indictment of an offence—
	(i) under subsection (1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae) or (c) of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (prohibited weapons), or
	(ii) under subsection (1A)(a) of that section,
	(b) the offence was committed after the commencement of section 51A of that Act and at a time when he was aged 16 or over, and
	(c) the court is of the opinion mentioned in section 51A(2) of that Act (exceptional circumstances which justify its not imposing required custodial sentence)."
	(3) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
	"(5) Where subsection (2) of section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968 requires the imposition of a sentence of detention under this section for a term of at least the required minimum term (within the meaning of that section), the court shall sentence the offender to be detained for such period, of at least that term but not exceeding the maximum term of imprisonment with which the offence is punishable in the case of a person aged 18 or over, as may be specified in the sentence.".'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 49
	 — 
	Power to Sentence Young Offender to Detention in Respect of Certain Firearms Offences: Scotland

'(1) The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 49(3) (children's hearing for purpose of obtaining advice as to treatment of child), at the end there is added "except that where the circumstances are such as are mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968 it shall itself dispose of the case".
	(3) In section 208 (detention of children convicted on indictment), the existing provisions become subsection (1); and after that subsection there is added—
	"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the circumstances are such as are mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968.".'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 50
	 — 
	Power by Order to Exclude Application of Minimum Sentence to Those Under 18

'(1) The Secretary of State may by order—
	(a) amend section 51A(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) by substituting for the word "16" the word "18",
	(b) repeal section 91(1A)(c) and (5) of the Sentencing Act,
	(c) amend subsection (3) of section 49 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46) by repealing the exception to that subsection,
	(d) repeal section 208(2) of that Act, and
	(e) make such other provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of, or in connection with, the provision made by virtue of paragraphs (a) to (d).
	(2) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(e) includes, in particular, provision amending or repealing any provision of an Act (whenever passed), including any provision of this Act.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 51
	 — 
	Increase in Penalty for Offences Relating to Importation or Exportation of Certain Firearms

'(1) The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 50 (penalty for improper importation of goods), for subsection (5A) there is substituted—
	"(5A) In the case of an offence under subsection (2) or (3) above in connection with—
	(a) a prohibition or restriction on the importation of a firearm falling within section 5(1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae) or (c) or (1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968, or
	(b) the prohibition contained in section 20 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981,
	subsection (4)(b) above shall have effect as if for the words "7 years" there were substituted the words "10 years"."
	(3) In section 68 (offences in relation to exportation of prohibited or restricted goods) for subsection (4A) there is substituted—
	"(4A) In the case of an offence under subsection (2) above in connection with—
	(a) a prohibition or restriction on the exportation of a firearm falling within section 5(1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae) or (c) or (1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968, or
	(b) the prohibition contained in section 21 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981,
	subsection (3)(b) above shall have effect as if for the words "7 years" there were substituted the words "10 years"."
	(4) In section 170 (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty, etc), for subsection (4A) there is substituted—
	"(4A) In the case of an offence under this section in connection with—
	(a) a prohibition or restriction on the importation or exportation of a firearm falling within section 5(1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae) or (c) or (1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968, or
	(b) the prohibitions contained in sections 20 and 21 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981,
	subsection (3)(b) above shall have effect as if for the words "7 years" there were substituted the words "10 years"."
	(5) This section does not affect the penalty for any offence committed before the commencement of this section.'—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28
	 — 
	Sentencing Guidelines Council: Supplementary Provisions

'(1) In relation to the Council, the Lord Chancellor may by order make provision—
	(a) as to the term of office, resignation and reappointment of judicial members and non-judicial members,
	(b) enabling the appropriate Minister to remove a judicial member or non-judicial member from office on grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour, and
	(c) as to the proceedings of the Council.
	(2) In subsection (1)(b) "the appropriate Minister" means—
	(a) in relation to a judicial member, the Lord Chancellor, and
	(b) in relation to a non-judicial member, the Secretary of State.
	(3) The validity of anything done by the Council is not affected by any vacancy among its members, by any defect in the appointment of a member or by any failure to comply with section 152(4A) , (4D) or (4E).
	(4) The Lord Chancellor may pay—
	(a) to any judicial member who is appointed by virtue of being a lay justice, such remuneration or expenses as he may determine, and
	(b) to any other judicial member or the Lord Chief Justice, such expenses as he may determine.
	(5) The Secretary of State may pay to any non-judicial member such remuneration or expenses as he may determine.'—[Yvette Cooper.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 6—Increase in sentences for hate crimes.
	New clause 10—Abolition of imprisonment for fine default.
	Government amendment No. 233.
	Amendment No. 31.
	Government amendments Nos. 234 and 235.
	Amendments Nos. 482, 483 and 67,
	Government amendments Nos. 236 and 197.
	Amendments Nos. 175 to 177.
	Government amendment No. 198, and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
	Amendment No. 178.
	Government amendment No. 199.
	Amendments Nos. 181, 179, 183, 184, 180, 25, 182, 26 and 186.
	Government amendments Nos. 200 and 201.
	Amendment No. 188.
	Government amendments Nos. 262 to 271, 237, 238, 272 to 275 and 239 to 241.
	Amendment No. 488.
	Government amendment No. 242.
	Amendment No. 484.
	Government amendment No. 243.
	Amendments Nos. 489, 485 to 487 and 490.
	Government amendments Nos. 244 to 247.
	Amendment No. 191.
	Government amendments Nos. 248 and 249.
	Amendments Nos. 492, 496 and 494.
	Government amendment No. 276.
	Amendments Nos. 493, 497 and 495.
	Government amendments Nos. 277 to 280.
	Amendments Nos. 192, 120 and 193.
	Government amendment No. 281.
	Amendments Nos. 491 and 68 to 70.
	Government amendments Nos. 282 to 284, 250 to 252 and 285 to 298.
	Amendment No. 194.
	Government amendments Nos. 202, 253, 254, 301, 302, 304, 306 to 313, 255, 315 and 256 to 258.

Yvette Cooper: This group contains a series of amendments, many of which are technical and drafting amendments. In the time available, I shall concentrate my remarks on the main substantive amendments tabled by the Government. I will not go into detail about why we are resisting many of the Opposition amendments on other topics, although if we have time later, I shall be happy to respond to points that hon. Members make in speaking to their amendments.
	The main Government amendments in this group relate to the Sentencing Guidelines Council and result from an extensive and constructive debate in Committee. I have read the reports of those debates, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for raising some important issues, and all who contributed to the discussion about the composition and role of the council. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), now the Minister of State, Department for International Development, said in Committee that the Government would consider the issue further. That is what we have done and why we have proposed these amendments.
	The argument advanced in Committee was that the membership of the council should be widened to include those from a non-judicial background. The amendments do that. We have not reflected the precise proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North and by the Opposition, and I shall explain why.
	There is a series of principles that are broadly agreed. First, our aim is to achieve greater transparency and public legitimacy for the sentencing framework. Secondly, we need to maintain and safeguard judicial independence, which is vital for underpinning the rule of law and for democracy. In particular, we need to ensure that judicial independence in sentencing decisions on individual cases is safeguarded. Thirdly, it will help us to achieve greater credibility and legitimacy for the sentencing framework if there is non-judicial input into the guidelines. Fourthly, democratically elected representatives in Parliament should have a voice in the process, although we do not want to politicise the process of developing the guidelines. Fifthly, we must ensure that we produce high quality guidelines that command the respect of members of the judiciary, who need to take decisions on a day-to-day basis, as well as practitioners and the wider public. The process must be credible with both the judiciary and the public.

Hilton Dawson: I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I understand that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), now the international development Minister, said that various amendments relating to juvenile sentencing were not appropriate, as the Government plan to introduce legislation to bring together the purposes of juvenile sentencing. Can my hon. Friend confirm that and indicate when it is likely to happen? Will she confirm that the issues of juvenile sentencing that are before the House today can be reviewed at that stage?

Yvette Cooper: I can confirm that much work is under way on some of the issues concerning juveniles. My hon. Friend is aware that that is being led by the Home Office, and I am sure that my hon. Friends at the Department will be happy to write to him about those proposals.

Graham Allen: Before my hon. Friend gets into the detail, this may be the appropriate time to put on record my thanks, and I hope the thanks of all who served on the Standing Committee, for the way in which the Government have responded to the proposals put before them by all parties, including those on the Opposition Front Benches, who attempted to be constructive in the development and broadening out of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. As my hon. Friend continues her remarks, she will come to issues on which there are certain reservations and others on which I think we could go a little further, but I hope that the Government take great satisfaction from the way in which they involved Members to produce a better Bill than it was when it first went into Committee.

Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, which I welcome.
	The Bill already makes considerable improvements by setting up the Sentencing Guidelines Council to draw up clear guidelines of high quality. The council's decisions will be informed by the research and the expertise of the Sentencing Advisory Panel. Its draft guidelines will be published and scrutinised by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but in Committee members on both sides argued that we should go further and extend the membership of the council to include those from non-judicial backgrounds. The Government have done so by tabling amendments in order to improve the quality and authority of the guidelines.
	In addition to the judicial members appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary will appoint five individuals to the Sentencing Guidelines Council with experience in one or more of the following fields: policing; criminal prosecution; criminal defence; the interests of victims; and sentencing and correctional services policy. The council will have seven judicial members, as well as the Lord Chief Justice, who will continue as chairman and will appoint a deputy chairman from among the council members. Judicial members will therefore form the majority, helping to maintain the confidence of the Court of the Appeal and the judiciary more widely.
	Judicial members will be allocated from those who fall under the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, so they will be appointed by him in consultation with the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice. Non-judicial members reflect the wider policy interests of the Home Secretary and will therefore be appointed by him in consultation with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice. The majority of members of the council will already be paid from the public purse, but for those to whom that does not apply, the power to pay a fee ensures that the most suitable people can be appointed.
	Expanding the council's membership in that way will enable it to produce robust and comprehensive sentencing guidelines that command respect and increase confidence in the criminal justice system.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I have checked the meaning of brevity in the dictionary, so this intervention will be brief.
	The Minister will know very well that the judiciary in this country is primarily male and white. Will she consider introducing a provision to ensure that the non-judicial members make the council more reflective of the community in this country? In other words, there should be some provision to increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the hon. Lady's work in trying to ensure that the voices of women and minority ethnic communities are heard at all levels in public service. I shall certainly ensure that the Home Secretary is aware of the points that she has made when he considers appointments to the council.

Graham Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to make a more substantial point about the composition of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. All of us welcome the broadening of the membership to include police officers, prison governors and so on. One of the key things that we tried to achieve in Committee was to ensure that representatives of the three arms of state—judiciary, legislature and Executive—would be around the same table to discuss sentencing and arrive at a consensus about it, so that the debilitating exchange between the Lord Chief Justice, the Home Secretary and Members of Parliament could be resolved so as to restore some faith and credibility in the council. Will she discuss with the House whether she believes that it is appropriate for the Home Secretary to be directly represented on the council, if not a member of it, at some future point, or for the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs or the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department to be represented, so that all three arms of state are represented around the table?

Yvette Cooper: I know that my hon. Friend raised that point directly with the Home Secretary during debate about the previous group of amendments, as I watched the debate on the monitor. I think that I heard the Home Secretary reply that he was daunted by the prospect of having to work on the detail of a considerable number of sentencing guidelines.
	There is also a broader point: we are trying to secure a balance, and we need to ensure that a wider voice is heard in developing the guidelines. My hon. Friend is right that it is important that the voice of Parliament should be heard in the process, as well as the views of the Home Secretary. Equally, it is important that we avoid over-politicising the process. For example, I know that he and other hon. Members have made clear their view that we should not engage in a bidding war about sentencing and that we should not inappropriately politicise the process and encourage debates on the Floor of the House or in which Cabinet Ministers and their shadow counterparts engage in a bidding game about the appropriate sentencing and mitigating factors regarding the detail of different guidelines.
	The proposals set out an appropriate balance whereby the Home Secretary will appoint members to the Sentencing Guidelines Council on the basis of their expertise in various parts of the criminal justice system. It is right that the Home Secretary himself is not a member of the council. Equally, it is right that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the guidelines and have its voice heard—the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in particular, should be able to discuss them—but there are, frankly, advantages in not having politicians as members of the council.

Annabelle Ewing: The Minister stated a wee bit earlier that she listened to the debate on the previous group of amendments. I had assumed, having read the Bill, that new clause 28 and the clause to which it relates, clause 152, have no application in Scotland. In the previous debate, mention was made of the Sentencing Guidelines Council considering, for example, road traffic offences. For the absence of doubt, can the Minister confirm that the council's remit will have no impact and jurisdiction in Scotland?

Yvette Cooper: My understanding is that the hon. Lady is right in her interpretation. If she will allow me, I shall clarify the point when I sum up or, if I do not have time, at a later stage.

Dominic Grieve: I understand that to have politicians sitting on the Sentencing Guidelines Council might be undesirable, and we certainly do not seek that. As the Minister will be aware, however, we have argued, and continue to argue, that a degree of parliamentary input into the process through having guidelines ratified by Parliament by affirmative resolution might go a long way towards reassuring the public about Parliament's involvement without in any way detracting from the fact that the guidelines themselves will be formulated by an expert council.

Yvette Cooper: Again, the answer is that we need to strike the right balance. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he did not want to join a bidding war on sentencing. It would be inappropriate to ask Parliament as a whole to debate and vote on the detail of every single sentence. We set the maximum sentence in Parliament, and it is right that we do so. In the previous debate, which was led by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we heard about the concerns and views of Parliament on some of the most serious offences, but we should bear in mind that there are a huge number of offences and there will need to be, over time, a large number of guidelines.
	The appropriate role for Parliament is to set the broad sentencing parameters by defining the offence and the maximum sentence, and the judiciary's role is to make judgments on individual cases. The Sentencing Guidelines Council effectively provides a bridge between those two roles. If we are to get the balance right in a sensitive relationship between different branches of government and different institutions within a democracy, there is huge value in not asking Parliament as a whole to vote on every single guideline, but equally we must ensure that Parliament has its voice by allowing the Home Affairs Committee to express its views. The Sentencing Guidelines Council will also need to have regard to the views of the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor.

Andrew Dismore: Government amendment No. 198 provides that a non-judicial appointment might be a civil servant. Can my hon. Friend clarify whether that is because the personal qualities of some civil servants will make them appropriate for the job, or are they intended to be another bridge between the Sentencing Guidelines Council and the Secretary of State?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that the amendment would allow civil servants to be appointed. Experience of sentencing, for example, work in the Prison Service or in sentencing policy, may mean that civil servants—Government employees—have the greatest expertise. My hon. Friend is also right that we should be able to take account of appropriate expertise. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes that people should be appointed on the basis of their expertise, not as representatives of his views.

Graham Allen: I thank my hon. Friend and all Front-Bench Members for their generosity in giving way. It has promoted a helpful and positive dialogue. Does my hon. Friend accept that members of the Standing Committee proposed the three-way combination on the Sentencing Guidelines Council partly so that everyone bought into the process and the decision making? If the Home Secretary, a deputy or the Chairman of either the Home Affairs Committee or a Committee that deals with judicial matters does not serve on the Sentencing Guidelines Council, there may be a distance between the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature that will lead to the Home Secretary's being able to discount the council's views or hon. Members' being able to engage in a bidding war when matters come before the House. In the long-term, will my hon. Friend re-examine the possibility of uniting the three arms of state?

Yvette Cooper: In the end, no system can guarantee consensus if different views are held. However, the set-up that we propose allows a proper dialogue between those who have different views and approach the matter from different perspectives, and ensures that the dialogue takes place in the public arena. It allows for the draft guidelines to be published and for the Home Affairs Committee to comment.
	It is equally important to recognise that, although we should hold a dialogue and aim for broad consensus and legitimacy for the guidelines, we each play different roles in the process. On other subjects, my hon. Friend has argued for increasing the separation of powers and introducing greater clarity into the separate components of government.
	The proposal attempts to strike the right balance. The Home Secretary makes the appointments, and there are clearly plenty of opportunities for his views to be heard as part of the process. It is also important that the Sentencing Guidelines Council is constituted in the way in which the amendments set out. It will be chaired by the Lord Chief Justice and have a clear voice.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for her generosity in giving way. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) entertained us greatly and made valuable contributions in Committee. However, the Parliamentary Secretary is fundamentally right. Our commitments and obligations under the European convention on human rights, especially on fair trial, mean that it would be wrong for the Home Secretary to be a member of the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the hon. Lady's support. We must ensure that we each play our separate roles and that the independence of the judiciary is maintained. We must also ensure that the process has the confidence of the different parts of government and our democratic institutions. The system must have the confidence of the judiciary and be able to produce high quality guidelines that the judiciary and the magistracy can use on a daily basis.
	We have had an extensive debate about the Government's thinking in response to the amendments. Most other Government amendments in the group are minor and make various textual improvements to the aspect of the Bill that deals with sentencing. Some respond to drafting questions that were raised in Committee and others to deficiencies in the measure. Some are consequential.
	We have tried to accommodate concerns raised by members of the Committee, while maintaining what I consider to be an important balance by ensuring that sentencing is carried out properly and appropriately, and that trials are fair and are conducted transparently. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raised that last point.
	I will happily respond to amendments that Members wish to discuss later, but I shall end my speech now so that everyone has a chance to speak about new clause 28.

Dominic Grieve: The Government should be commended on recognising the strength of the view expressed in Committee that the current arrangements for sentencing, and indeed their own proposals, might not be sufficient. I thank the Home Secretary and the Minister for producing what is probably a better alternative.
	Nevertheless, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), there remains the considerable issue of whether the Sentencing Guidelines Council in its new form will be deemed representative enough. As was said in Committee, tension will inevitably surround the options of a council consisting of professionals and one that might be seen as broadly representative of the public at large.
	Amendment No. 177, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, lists the people whom he would like to be on the council. I will not read out the entire list, which in any event may be altered according to influences brought to bear on him by other Members; but it includes a representative of the business community, a representative of a victims' organisation, a teachers' representative and a representative of ex-offenders' institutions. The hon. Gentleman is trying, as he did in Committee, to widen the council's scope and to make it rather different from what the Government intended.
	The Government originally described the council as a judicial body, providing also for the continued existence of a Sentencing Advisory Panel to contribute alternative input. One issue that the Minister has not clarified to my satisfaction is the continuing interaction between the two bodies. I suspect she will say that the panel is intended to operate exactly as it was always intended to operate, but given the proposed inclusion of new council members it could be argued that a measure of duplication is developing. I fear, however, that because of the timetabling and the whole way in which our business has been handled, we shall not have time to engage in a proper dialogue on the subject this afternoon.

Graham Allen: I am quite content with the Government's list of four or five additional members. The "shopping list" of potential members was drawn from various suggestions from all quarters of the Committee. I will spare the hon. Gentleman's blushes by not specifying his own suggestions.

Dominic Grieve: I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.
	The key amendment tabled by us is amendment No. 26. The point is that however we approach this issue, the general public input simply is not there. I do not criticise the Government for that, because I accept that the detailed process of setting sentencing guidelines is a matter for the professionals. Indeed, I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, having said that he was broadly satisfied with the list produced by the Government—which includes policing, criminal prosecution, criminal defence, the promotion of the welfare of victims of crime, sentencing policy and the administration of sentences—takes the view that it already goes a long way towards meeting his requirements.
	The difficulty that will always exist is that the proposals might not be in accordance with the public's perception when they are published, even though there could be public discussion and debate on them. I take the Minister's point that the Home Affairs Committee will be able to look at the guidelines and publish a learned document, although I am afraid that history shows that such a document would be perused for about 24 hours—if not 24 minutes—by the wider public, and for a little longer by the Government when they come to publish their response.

Chris Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman looks at just about all the Home Office legislation passed in this Parliament, he will find clauses that have been introduced as a result of suggestions made by the Home Affairs Committee. Some things are also occasionally deleted at the suggestion of the Committee, so the hon. Gentleman should not be too hopeless.

Dominic Grieve: I certainly would not wish to disparage the work done by the hon. Gentleman and his Committee—far from it. My comment came from my own experience of serving on other Select Committees—I served on the Environmental Audit Committee—which showed me that a huge amount of work goes into Select Committee activities in the House. Although that work sometimes has an impact, I sometimes wish that we were more successful in making a greater impact through the reports that we produce. But that is in no way to diminish what the hon. Gentleman and the other members of his Committee attempt to achieve.
	Unless the public have a sense that suggestions can be taken up, we shall see the problem of a hole appearing between professionals and the general public over sentencing. When we considered this matter in Committee, my hon. Friends and I, and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), came to the conclusion that we could see no reason why Parliament should not have a role in the setting of sentencing guidelines. I am extremely mindful of what was said earlier about not having bidding wars, and I certainly do not wish to see any taking place on this issue. That is one reason why amendment No. 26 specifically would not allow Parliament to initiate the setting of sentencing guidelines. The initiation of any change to existing guidelines must be a matter for the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
	The amendment envisages that, once the guidelines have been published—not as definitive guidelines, but as draft guidelines—the Home Affairs Committee should first have an opportunity to consider them and to produce a report. On publication of that report, the guidelines—or any changes to them, because the starting point would be the existing guidelines—would come into force after approval by both Houses of Parliament. I would envisage that process being carried out under the affirmative resolution procedure, and I would expect that it could be done shortly. Obviously, if Parliament refused to alter the existing guidelines, that would mean not that there were no guidelines but that the existing ones would remain. That would have the consequence of remitting the guidelines back to the Sentencing Guidelines Council for further consideration.
	I accept that that process would not be free of difficulty. I sometimes feel, however, that we do ourselves a disservice by constantly assuming that we shall engage in bidding wars or that we are incapable of taking responsible decisions and echoing public concerns. My experience in life—not just in this place—tells me that people who have responsibility tend to rise to it. If they are denied responsibility, we will have only ourselves to blame when the public cease to take us seriously.

Graham Allen: In the past couple of days, the hon. Gentleman has had a taste of how the Executive treat Parliament and how strong Parliament is when it wishes to discuss matters, perhaps for more time than we are being allowed today.
	There is a problem that the hon. Gentleman has to confront: while the judiciary has one hit, the Executive have two. The Government and the Home Office are very powerful and they are rightly listened to, but the Government also control the House of Commons. Parliament is their puppet. Therefore, if we allow the Executive two shots to the judiciary's one on sentencing, we will end up with a sentencing regime that is wholly formulated in the Home Office. Once again, that is why all three arms of state need to be properly represented, and they need to sit around the table at the Sentencing Guidelines Council and reach a consensus, however long it takes.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but the mechanism that I am suggesting has within it a number of safeguards that might well prevent that from happening. I see him crossing his fingers. We must be careful of wishful thinking, but we can have wishes.
	First and foremost, the guidelines council would produce the recommendations. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, although it may be swayed by the Government, it will, on the whole, be independent of them. I know that there is supposed to be a telephone line that links the Home Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice.

Graham Allen: It has been discontinued.

Dominic Grieve: It may be discontinued, but in any event there would be sufficient other members of the Sentencing Guidelines Council to prevent excessive influence from being brought to bear.
	We would have recommendations from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, not from the Government, so Parliament would be asked to approve something from an independent body. It would then be vetted by the Home Affairs Committee, which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North would agree has shown a remarkable spirit of independence, absence of partisanship and willingness to work on a cross-party basis. The Committee would make sensible recommendations and reach sensible conclusions, as most Select Committees do.
	If the Home Affairs Committee approved the sentencing guidelines and thought them highly desirable, and bearing it in mind that Parliament would have the last say, let us assume for a moment that the Government would bring great pressure to bear on the Commons and on Members as to how they would vote on the matter. If the sentencing guidelines were rejected, based on what was clearly perceived to be Government pressure, the Government would have to live with the consequences, including, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, considerable criticism and public debate, which, in itself, is one of the things that we seek to stimulate.
	On the other hand, the Commons may be seen to be acting independently of the Government, or perhaps even contrary to their views—a Government would be most reluctant to overturn Sentencing Guidelines Council recommendations—and it is more likely that the Commons would flex its muscles on the one or two occasions when the Home Affairs Committee says that there has been a mistake and that it is not prepared to go along with it. I cannot help but think that that would provide a mechanism that protected the public and public opinion and which might also improve the position. Of course there is no perfection, but the matter ought to be given serious consideration.

Graham Allen: There are two problems with the hon. Gentleman's argument. First, let us say that the Home Secretary, in asking Parliament to overturn guidelines, would do so only on the basis that it would play well with the public. He would no doubt have a massive chorus behind him, calling for the overturning of those weak judges and those professionals. It could be built up in such a way, although I am not suggesting that the current Home Secretary would do that. I mention the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who may operate differently.
	Secondly, already—before the Sentencing Guidelines Council is in being—great rafts of its powers on murder, dangerous driving and firearms have been stripped away. It is not even up and running yet, but a Home Secretary can use this place to strip out the sentencing issues that he regards as particularly important to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is in danger of becoming a dialogue. There is limited time and other Members may wish to participate—including the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

Dominic Grieve: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall simply say this. I am aware of the criticisms that he made; indeed, I share some of his disquiet, which I expressed earlier. However, the fact that the Government have chosen that course of action does show that the buck stops here. We already impose maxima and minima for certain offences. As the Minister accepted, it is wrong to say that Parliament has a role in sentencing not just in terms of policy but in setting certain maxima and minima for sentences. I would prefer Parliament to be engaged in that process in a responsible way, rather than being forced out completely; I cannot help thinking that that might ultimately play more into the hands of Executive power. However, the suggestion exists, and if I had the opportunity to press amendment No. 26 to the vote—I understand that I almost certainly will not, which is a reflection of the state of our procedure—I would seek to do so.

David Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: Well, briefly.

David Kidney: I shall be very brief. If the hon. Gentleman is unsuccessful with that proposal, does he think that we can make much of the council's annual report, which will be laid before Parliament each year?

Dominic Grieve: It is certainly better to have an annual report than no annual report. I welcome such a report, and if it is laid before Parliament it will provide an opportunity for debate and for Members of Parliament to express their views.
	I turn briefly—I am conscious of time pressure—to a couple of other matters that feature in our amendments. The key amendment is No. 67, which is unrelated to the Sentencing Guidelines Council but concerns the fact that in considering sentencing, the Government—very properly, in our view—have decided to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates to 12 months. We had a great debate on this provision in Committee, and we said that we had reservations about it because of the failure to link it with the introduction of sentencing plus and sentencing minus; indeed, we have real anxieties about the effect on the prison population. Nevertheless, subject to its being adequately linked to sentencing plus and sentencing minus, which would provide mechanisms through which people can be released early or not imprisoned at all, we take the view that it is acceptable to increase magistrates' powers in this way.
	But lo and behold, clause 140 includes a further provision stating that the Government may increase the power to 18 months through statutory instrument. I simply do not think it appropriate to provide for such an enormous change in sentencing powers in that way. I am not saying that I cannot see a time when it might be correct to give magistrates sentencing powers of a maximum of 18 months imprisonment. However, if that is to happen it should be done through a short Bill that is brought before this House and considered in the ordinary way—in Committee, enabling a full debate and consideration.
	The Government are asking us to approve the principle of 18 months and say that the measure can be brought in whenever it is convenient. That is not a good way to legislate. Apart from anything else, we simply do not know what will happen. We very much hope that extending sentencing jurisdiction will be a good thing and that sentencing plus and sentencing minus will work well, but there is a lot to fear. At the moment, there is no coupling of 12 months to sentencing plus and sentencing minus. Secondly, even if it that happens, it is possible—because human affairs are not always successful—that in two or three years' time people will say that in fact, a mistake has been made in this regard.
	In such circumstances, giving the Government a power to increase the sentencing period to 18 months after the shortest of debates appears to us to be fundamentally wrong. Labour Members may also wish to consider whether this is appropriate or necessary. Even at this late stage, I very much hope that the Minister is willing to say that the Government are prepared to reconsider this issue. If she were to do so, I would withdraw my objection and reserve it for another place. But at the moment, it is our decision that we will seek to divide the House and get its opinion on this power. Amendment No. 67 is intended to do that. The view of my colleagues, myself and, I believe, Liberal Democrats is that the power is unnecessary and dangerous. If it is to be introduced, that should be done properly and not through a Henry VIII clause.
	Turning briefly to some of our other amendments, it may seem odd that amendment No. 120 deals with the schedule covering offences that will cease to be imprisonable, including the offence under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 of breach of contract involving injury to persons or property. When that Act was passed, that was considered an important safeguard, preventing violence and problems in trade union disputes, but it has not been explained why it should be included in schedule 19. We have tabled three important amendments to schedule 22.
	We had a debate yesterday about whether the inclusion of cannabis as a class C drug meant that all class C drugs should be made arrestable. A related issue is that by virtue of making cannabis a class C drug the Government now intend to raise the sentence for trafficking all class C drugs from five years to 14 years. We have always accepted the arguments for retaining the 14-year maximum sentence for trafficking cannabis and cannabis resin as if cannabis were still a class B drug, but there is no justification for raising to 14 years the maximum penalty for trafficking other class C drugs. As we discussed yesterday, there are only about 400 prosecutions a year for such offences, most of which involve substances which, albeit undesirable and bad for people to take, are not abused in the way that cannabis and class A drugs are. There is therefore no justification for introducing a draconian sanction against offences involving drugs such as diazepam and anabolic steroids.
	The Government have got themselves into a twist over this. They have tried to give the impression that they were reducing the classification of cannabis while in fact retaining most of the penalties for cannabis offences, keeping the arrestable offence and the offence punishable by a 14-year sentence for trafficking. The Government should provide a distinct category for cannabis and cannabis resin and leave the remaining class C drugs alone. A serious mistake is being made. If we had the opportunity to put our amendments to the vote, we would certainly seek to do so.

Graham Allen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on the calm and rational way in which he made his case, just as he did in Committee. I extend that compliment to other Opposition and Government Members who served in Committee—we had a constructive debate, which is evident in some of the changes that we managed to secure from the Government. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was a little harsh, as there have been a number of breakthroughs. The change to the Sentencing Guidelines Council is half a breakthrough, and the job can be completed another day.
	The amended purposes of sentencing may be a minor change, but they, too, are significant. The Government have now tabled an amendment stating that the rehabilitation of offenders should be a separate purpose of sentencing. I commend the former Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), on listening to the arguments made by Committee members from all political parties, acting on them and tabling an appropriate amendment. It is a small one, but it is none the less significant that there will be independent consideration of the purposes of sentencing.
	Colleagues will be amazed to hear that I do not want to say too much about the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I have said enough about it in Committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), kindly allowed interventions on the subject, as did the Opposition spokesman. The Parliamentary Secretary said that I have talked in the past—and I freely admit it—about the separation of powers. The paradox of sentencing is that we must recognise that there has to be a separation of powers. It is often quite murky in our constitution, but we must accept that the judiciary, the legislature and the Executive are all entitled to an independent view and an independent life without being constrained. The irony is that, in order to make progress, there must be a means of reconciling those three elements of state. That is all that the Sentencing Guidelines Council is seeking to do, as discussed in Committee.
	We have only half a Sentencing Guidelines Council at the moment, which is certainly better than none, but I am sure that colleagues here and in the other place will seek to ensure that the job is completed—if not entirely by the other place on this occasion, by ourselves on another and future occasion. Sadly, the lessons may be seared into our consciousness by a bidding war on the Floor of the House. A couple of serious offences were mentioned earlier, and one could almost hear someone thinking, "They should certainly get five years for this," while someone else was thinking, "No, six years," and someone else, "Seven or eight," and perhaps a "Nine" from the back.
	Let us go back to the example of the multiple offender from the north-east who was drinking and driving and taking life by reckless use of a vehicle. In those horrendous circumstances, or those surrounding the shooting of two young girls in Birmingham recently, who is immune to feeling outrage and perhaps opting for a longer sentence than might be proposed in a more rational and calmer environment? That is why I believe that we should continue to seek a way forward through the Sentencing Guidelines Council, whose deliberations are slow, protracted and based on the hard miles ground out by the Sentencing Advisory Panel and its experts. One day I hope that we will get back to that.
	On judicial discretion, I believe that the Bill has a weakness. Although we assume that judges always have the final say in individual cases, it is not stated clearly enough in the Bill that judges shall have the final say. That argument was advanced in Committee, and I tabled an amendment to that effect here, but it was not selected. However, if we are to secure the right balance between the Executive and the judiciary—between the Sentencing Guidelines Council and what judges can do within the limits that it sets—we must clearly define exactly what judicial power is. Otherwise they—the judges, and perhaps others—might feel that the power could be eroded and diminished over time.
	I do not look at any particular Minister or at the cuddly Front-Bench Members who currently speak for the Opposition, but in future, other personalities might seek to abuse the power and to erode the long-standing independence of the judiciary. Specific proposals to secure judicial independence in principle should appear in a Bill at some time, so that the House can, if necessary, defend the principle.
	My final point, in response to this ragbag of new clauses and amendments, is about honesty in sentencing. By that, I do not mean the argument that life should mean life, but that when a judge sentences someone to two years' imprisonment, every single person in the courtroom knows that that really means one year in prison and one year out on licence or on probation. That does not play well in areas of the sort that I represent. I would far prefer us to be clear and honest about sentencing. A year in prison should mean just that. At the time of sentencing, we should make it clear that, in addition to a year in prison, for example, a person would also be given a year on probation—or on recall, or licence, or whatever.
	That would mean that people could not say, "That person got two years but they're out after half a sentence and I saw them in the street the other day." The real punishment given to an offender would not be changed, but we would be being honest about it. Unless we are honest, and stop concealing the truth about sentencing, we will not be able to reclaim our criminal justice system—not for those who work in it or who supply its clients, but for the public whom it is meant to serve. We have had many learned debates in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House, but for all that, people still feel alienated and distanced from the criminal justice system. I have made a very minor suggestion for dealing with that problem, and I raise it again for consideration by the House. I propose that the members of the criminal justice system in each locality should get together to produce a brief and snappy report for the people whom the system is meant to serve. That report would be distributed to each elector in the area, so that people can understand how the police work, for instance, and whether crime rates are going up. They would also learn about how they can help the police, who the local beat bobby is, and so on.
	The report would also show people how the magistrates courts differ from Crown courts. Until one gets into the topic, that is quite a leap of knowledge. A lot of people regard courts as simply courts: they do not know the difference between the various types of courts. Other matters that the report could cover would be community sentences and how people can be involved in deciding them. People would be able to find out whether such sentences are a soft option, and what happens to those who receive them.
	Information on all those matters needs to be communicated to people. We need to start educating people about their criminal justice system. A number of colleagues in Standing Committee went a long way towards nudging that process along, but Government intervention is needed. The Government need to tell the local criminal justice boards that have been created recently that they have a duty to make a connection with people at home. Those are the people who should own the criminal justice system, just as people who pay dues to a society or club have a right to know what is going on in their group. If we make that connection, we will go a long way towards ensuring that people understand, appreciate and adhere to the values of the criminal justice system that we are all trying to communicate.

David Heath: May I begin by expressing my sympathy to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being confronted with having to read out 118 amendments? Quite rightly, you declined to do so, for fear of taking up the time of the House. It is impossible to do justice either to the compass of the amendments or their details in the context of this debate. I do not think that any of us will be able even to try to do so.
	However, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), especially when he is in the sort of mode that means that I agree with everything he says. Sometimes he is not in that mode, but he is today. He has played an important part in consideration of the Bill, and he has made two very important points.
	First, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to demand what he calls honesty in sentencing. The same point was made a little earlier this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). When a sentence is pronounced, everyone involved in the case—inside or outside the court—should know exactly what it means, and what the consequences will be. That is the system that we must aim for. For a lot or people, the present system smells of some sort of deceit. Things happen that they do not expect: those in the know are aware of what a particular sentence means, but those outside that charmed circle do not. That is wrong, and it is something that we need to deal with.
	The second point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North was about the Sentencing Guidelines Council. He has been trying to widen the compass of the council and to involve us, as a legislature, in it. He is right to do so, and a variety of mechanisms could be employed.
	The hon. Gentleman chided me for being harsh on the Government, even before I had opened my mouth on the subject. However, Ministers and the Home Department have listened to some of the points that we made in Committee. The amendments are welcome and I shall certainly not oppose them. There are still some deficiencies in the proposals, however. I am not sure that, prior to setting the guidelines, our objectives are right; in some ways, they are mutually antagonistic. There is still a lack of clarity, although representation is much wider than it was.
	My greatest concern is that some of the aspirations for the Sentencing Guidelines Council will not be met in practice, simply because the compass of its work is so enormous. It is important to establish a working council in which people have confidence, which reconnects members of the public to the judicial process of which they often have little experience. People know of it only as it involves them and have no points of comparison with similar cases elsewhere in the country. They are often told what is outrageous by a press that does not necessarily consider carefully the consequences of its proposed sentencing policy. We watch a tawdry Punch and Judy show involving the Home Secretary and the senior judiciary, which is demeaning to the office of the Home Secretary and corrosive of the authority of the judiciary. Given that context, the establishment of a working, effective Sentencing Guidelines Council is extremely important.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talked about the extension of powers to magistrates. I agree with the points that he made. There is serious concern both about the synchronicity of the extension of those powers with the introduction of custody plus and about the extension of sentencing powers by fiat of the Executive. We were signatories to amendment No. 67, so if there is a Division, I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support that provision.
	Amendment No. 492 and some subsequent amendments relate to drugs testing, a subject that has not yet been aired in this debate. However, we explored it fully in Committee, so to do so again on Report would not be the best use of limited time. However, I am worried about the inconsistency of provision across the country and the lack of facilities for proper treatment after testing. A positive test should lead to positive consequences for the individual, who should be given help to deal with the results of drug abuse. My concerns about young children are shared by the organisations that work with them; the Government may not yet have the balance right in the current regime for providing support and help to young children who have a problem with addictive substances.
	There are two points on which I want to spend a little more time. The first is new clause 10, which deals with the consequences of fine default and suggests that prison is not a good solution. There have already been changes. In 1993, about 26,000 fine defaulters were imprisoned, but by 2001 the number had gone down to about 1,500. We know, for instance, that 830 people were imprisoned for non-payment of television licence fees in 1993, and that the figure was down to 30 in 2001.
	However, the fact is that a significant number of people are imprisoned for defaulting on fines, while at the same time we have huge problems not only with the burgeoning prison population but with the non-collection of fines, as shown in the National Audit Office report, which revealed that in the relevant year £387 million in total was imposed in fines but only £228 million was collected. When corrections have been made for previous payments and so forth, the collection rate is about 59 per cent. Frankly, that is not good enough.
	My suggestion to the Government is to forget about imprisonment for fine default. By all means, use imprisonment as a final consequence of contempt of court, and if the contempt of court resides in a persistent abuse of the fine system, let the contemnors finally face that penalty, but that will not be the answer in most circumstances. We need to be much more imaginative in the way in which we apply sanctions to those who default on fines.
	The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois)—I am pleased to see him here—made a very good suggestion to consider whether credit rating adjustments might be one way to deal with those to whom a credit rating is important, as a way to remind them that if they do not pay they are failing in their duty to the wider community. Various measures for the sequestration of assets could be considered. Certainly, depriving some people of the use of their motor vehicles while they have motor vehicle fines unpaid might be a very good way of concentrating their minds. All those ways are better than imposing a prison sentence, which is proving to be not a deterrent but a burden on the state. Frankly, that position should not be sustained.

David Kidney: Alongside the decline in imprisonment for non-payment, which the hon. Gentleman recalls and which is largely due to some High Court judgments, there has been a fall in the proportion of total fine income paid. There has also been a fall in using fines as a sentence of choice by magistrates because they do not think that the fines will be paid. That is why I join him in saying that we need more effective enforcement, but the one method that he did not mention is direct payment from people's employment, from their bank or even, dare I say it, from their benefits. What is his view of that being more routine?

David Heath: There are ways of proceeding as the hon. Gentleman suggests, as we have seen not with fines but with support payments using the Child Support Agency mechanism. Clearly, such a mechanism could be used, but I have my doubts about the Inland Revenue administering anything else until it has got what it is supposed to be administering working correctly. However, he is right to mention that possible mechanism.
	Finally, I wish to deal with a very important new clause that we have tabled: new clause 6, which deals with hate crime. Undoubtedly, a wide spectrum of crimes are motivated by hate against certain groups of people. Indeed, the Government recognise that fact in relation to aggravated crimes involving race or religion. Many hon. Members have a difficulty with the limitations in the scope of clause 130. There is a lack of logic in arguing that aggravating factors should be applied to some hate crimes but not to others because of the difficulty in applying such a test to the satisfaction of the courts. I acknowledge that there is an argument that proving intent is always difficult. Having such an aggravating factor is a complication in terms of investigation, prosecution policy and how the courts deal with it. Clearly, however, that is not the Government's view, as clause 130 shows.
	Having said that, it seems to us that there is a very strong argument for having a more generalised aggravating factor for hate crime. We are not alone in that. Many other jurisdictions have precisely that, and the wording of new clause 6 is in fact lifted directly from the amended hate crime sentencing legislation dealing with federal crimes in the United States. A similar arrangement also exists in the great majority of individual state jurisdictions in the United States.

Greg Knight: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why he has decided not to include in the new clause the issues of size and age? Is it not just as offensive for someone to be the victim of a hate campaign or a crime on the grounds that they are extremely small, extremely fat or just plain old?

David Heath: If a class is discriminated against to the extent of criminal behaviour, there is an argument in that respect. That is not a reduction to the absurd—I hope that that is not the right hon. Gentleman's intention. The reason that we have used the words in question is simply that they have proved to be workable in a jurisdiction that has some similarities to ours, which is not an unreasonable suggestion. If it is possible, however, to identify a group in society that is subject to violent crime in particular on the basis of belonging to that class of society and no other reason, they deserve the protection of the laws and the courts of this country.
	Let me give two examples of areas that are not covered by the present legislation. First, there are homophobic attacks, which are frequent, as we know, and they are recognised by the police and the courts, but they do not appear in statute at present. Secondly, there are crimes against those who have learning difficulties. In that respect, I am indebted to Mencap for its recent survey on the basis of 900 questionnaires. Of those surveyed, 88 per cent. reported being targeted during the past year, 66 per cent. reported being targeted regularly—more than once a month—32 per cent. reported being targeted on a daily or weekly basis, and 47 per cent. reported name calling as a kind of harassment, but only 17 per cent. told the police about it. That is a huge abuse in our society, which should be dealt with.
	I am not satisfied that, however well-meaning the Association of Chief Police Officers' guidance is, it is sufficient to the task. ACPO does a splendid job in providing guidance to the forces and the constabularies of this country, but guidelines should not be a replacement for statute. We have an opportunity to address this issue in this Bill, which we should take, so unless the Parliamentary Secretary is able to satisfy me that the concerns that I have expressed are in her mind and will be dealt with later in the Bill, I am minded to press new clause 6 to a Division.

Hilton Dawson: I am especially grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your efforts to support the rights of Back Benchers and for providing an opportunity to address one really important issue that has not so far been considered. I refer, of course, to clauses 208, 210 and 211, and the associated Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 484 to 487, 489 and 490, with regard to life sentences, extended sentences and sentences for public protection of children and young people under the age of 18.
	Those aspects of the Bill are serious, quite mistaken and wrong. It is wrong for adult provisions to be applied to children, and it is important to note that provisions on life sentences, sentences for public protection and extended sentences could apply to 12-year-olds and, potentially, 10-year-olds. It is wrong to apply indeterminate sentences to children and it is wrong and thoroughly inappropriate for there to be circumstances in which it is mandatory for such sentences to be passed. I cannot believe that the provisions are in accordance with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Indeed, the way in which the Government operate youth justice is a stain on their otherwise fine record on children and social policy.
	I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that there will be more work on the principles behind sentencing children. We need a youth justice Bill and a child justice Bill for this country to ensure that we develop a youth justice system with the fundamental principles that children's welfare should be the paramount consideration, that deprivation of liberty should be used only as a last resort and imposed for the shortest possible time, and that any decisions on youth justice should be made in the best interests of the child.
	I am extremely disturbed by evidence from answers to written questions that suggests that the Bill could lead to 30 young people a year being detained for life, 10 young people a year receiving extended sentences and one or two young people a year receiving sentences of detention for public protection. Those figures compare with the 43 young people who are currently serving sentences of detention for life. We would massively increase the number of young people facing very long sentences. I cannot believe that it is appropriate to apply the same provisions to children as to adults. It would not be right in any way for children who had committed very serious offences to have so little prospect of rehabilitation and to be given so little hope for the future. I earnestly hope that the Government will thoroughly review their policy on youth justice—I believe that they will—and create a far better youth justice system for this country.

Yvette Cooper: I shall try to respond briefly to the points that have been made. The Sentencing Guidelines Council is not intended to overlap with the Sentencing Advisory Panel. The panel will be a more intensive working body that will conduct research and work on public consultation. The Sentencing Guidelines Council will make decisions and its membership will include those who have the credibility in their fields to command respect across the board.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that there should be a parliamentary vote on each guideline. That would not be an appropriate use of Parliament's time and expertise because guidelines are likely to be considered for 2,000 offences. Parliament's job is to set out the maximum sentence and to focus on specific concerns, as was demonstrated by the previous group of amendments. It is not, and should not be, Parliament's job to make judgments on sentencing on a day-to-day basis—that would be a rather scary prospect.
	We should recognise both our role and that of the courts. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide a bridge between Parliament and the courts. It is important that the process does not become a parliamentary take-over through an insistence that Parliament must vote on each guideline. It is also important for the process to have the confidence of the judiciary, given that it will have to take decisions on the basis of the guidelines.
	The extension of magistrates' sentencing powers is a vote of confidence in the magistracy. It is right to extend their powers in that way. We have made it clear many times that we take seriously the need to review that before there is a prospect of extending sentencing powers further. There is a proviso to do that through affirmative resolution, which means that the House will have a chance to debate it and vote on it again.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: I am afraid that I do not have time.
	We have made it clear that drug trafficking is a serious offence. We know that drug trafficking on a large scale is linked to organised and violent crime and to some of the most dangerous criminal networks. That is why the strong signal that we are sending on trafficking offences is different from our approach to possession, as reflected in our appropriate response to that offence and related sentencing provisions.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned hate crimes. He will know that provision has been made to deal with race and religion in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. In addition, we recognise that other groups may be vulnerable to attack or vilification. The courts can consider a premeditated attack on a person—perhaps because of their sexual orientation—to be an aggregated offence that merits a more serious sentence. The Government think that the case has not been made for a wider offence given that the courts can already respond and that it would not be appropriate to legislate now.
	I agree that it is right to try to avoid imprisonment for fine default where possible. The courts have powers to introduce community punishment, curfew orders and driving disqualifications when imprisonment might be a possibility. The Courts Bill also introduces new powers that will hit people's credit rating and allow for defaulters' cars to be clamped. We are also considering community alternatives because we have to recognise that some people simply cannot afford to pay. However, magistrates have strongly and repeatedly argued that we need to keep the prospect of imprisonment as a last resort for some offenders who persistently will not pay.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned amendment No. 120, which relates to an offence under trade union legislation. That offence was created more than 125 years ago to deal with workers who breach their contracts by participating in strike action, for example. That has led to only one prosecution in the past 10 years, which resulted in a £25 fine. Frankly, in this day and age it is inappropriate to imprison people for going on strike on the basis of an industrial dispute. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's party might be keen to lock up strikers, but this is 2003 and we think that it is inappropriate to retain that offence on the statute book, so we reject that amendment and others tabled by the Opposition.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Orders [2 April and 19 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 6

Increase in sentences for hate crimes
	'(1) In considering the seriousness of an offence which falls under the category of "hate crime" as set out in subsection (2), the court—
	(a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and
	(b) must state in open court that the offence was so aggravated.
	(2) An offence is to be considered a hate crime for the purposes of section if—
	(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's actual or perceived race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation; or
	(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards people on the basis of their race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
	(3) In this section "race" may be defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 326.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: No. 67, in page 81, line 8, leave out Clause 140.—[Mr. Grieve.]
	The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 320.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Government amendments agreed to.

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very conscious that the proceedings of the House are not exactly box office across the country. Nevertheless, a significant number of people attend to them in one way or another, in one place or another. I wonder whether you would be good enough to confirm that the reason why you have just had to go through that ludicrous charade is that we have not had time to debate the new clauses and amendments, and that the reason for that is the absurdity of the Government's truncation of the debate in the form of the ludicrous programme motion to which we were subjected yesterday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I am simply doing what the House has asked me to do.

New Clause 45
	 — 
	Limit on Period of Detention Without Charge of Suspected Terrorists

'(1) Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11) (detention) is amended as follows.
	(2) At the beginning of paragraph 29(3) (duration of warrants of further detention) there is inserted "Subject to paragraph 36(3A),".
	(3) In subparagraph (3) of paragraph 36 (extension of warrants)—
	(a) at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subparagraph (3A),", and
	(b) for the words from "beginning" onwards there is substituted "beginning with the relevant time".
	(4) After that subparagraph there is inserted—
	"(3A) Where the period specified in a warrant of further detention—
	(a) ends at the end of the period of seven days beginning with the relevant time, or
	(b) by virtue of a previous extension (or further extension) under this subparagraph, ends after the end of that period,
	the specified period may, on an application under this paragraph, be extended or further extended to a period ending not later than the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the relevant time.
	(3B) In this paragraph "the relevant time", in relation to a person, means—
	(a) the time of his arrest under section 41, or
	(b) if he was being detained under Schedule 7 when he was arrested under section 41, the time when his examination under that Schedule began.".' —[Beverley Hughes.]
	Brought up, and read the First time. 6 pm

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause.
	New clause 56—Audio and video recording of interviews of suspected terrorists.

Beverley Hughes: I ask the House to resist amendment (a) and new clause 56. Government new clause 45 will amend paragraph 3 of schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which governs the detention of persons under section 41 of that Act. Section 41 gives a constable the power to arrest a person without a warrant whom he or she reasonably suspects to be a terrorist. As Members know, a person detained under section 41 may be held by the police for only a maximum of 48 hours, unless an application has been made asking a court to issue or extend a warrant for further detention.
	Under the legislation as it stands, a court can extend the detention up to seven days if the conditions set out in that legislation are met. The Government new clause will allow detention for up to a maximum of 14 days. Its provisions come to us from the police and are considered essential by them, based on their experience of the practicalities of dealing with a suspected terrorist once in police custody. There are circumstances under which the current seven-day maximum may be insufficient to enable the police fully to investigate the offences in respect of which the individuals are detained.

Dominic Grieve: It would be very helpful if the Minister told the House, although obviously without citing individual cases, which would be improper, on how many occasions in the past 12 months, for instance, the police have had difficulty in completing their inquiries into any suspected terrorist within seven days.

Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman implies, I shall not go into individual cases or give any information that might be useful to those to whom the legislation might apply. However, I can tell him that in the first three months of this year 212 people were detained under those provisions. Of those, 16 went into the sixth day as a result of extensions. That does not quite answer his question, but I am afraid that I cannot answer it for the reasons I have outlined. Although the proportion is small, it has been necessary to detain a tiny number for extended periods.

Simon Hughes: I follow exactly the same train of questioning. Is it not right that last year only 16 cases ran up to the seven-day maximum? Why are we being asked to extend a period that we extended less than three years ago when we considered the Terrorism Act 2000? Lord Lloyd, who carried out an inquiry, recommended a limit of four days, and there was no pressure at all from the police or any other authority to go beyond seven.

Beverley Hughes: The methods and circumstances that the police meet when investigating such cases are evolving all the time, as the hon. Gentleman may appreciate. In addition, the police have conducted a review of all significant operations over recent times. They have concluded that more than seven days may be needed in specific cases. If he will bear with me, I shall give him general examples of the circumstances in which we could anticipate that more than seven days might be needed, albeit in a small number of cases.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Will she please tell the House how many of those 16 were not charged because inquiries had not been completed?

Beverley Hughes: I am sorry, but I do not have that information. If I had it, I am not sure that I would provide it to the hon. Gentleman in this public domain. If it is possible outside this place for me to brief him, I will do so.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so quickly after taking a number of interventions. She is well aware that Lord Carlile is the independent assessor of the operation of the terrorism legislation in Northern Ireland. He does a truly superb job. Has she consulted Lord Carlile on these changes, and what is his view?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, Lord Carlile, who is the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000, has been consulted. He has been fully briefed and he has had an extended meeting with officials. He has raised no concerns with us about the proposal and its provisions.
	In dealing with some of the examples that the police are encountering, in particular and increasingly frequently there may be occasions when it is necessary to examine substances that are thought to be dangerous, and which are found on or with detained individuals, to determine whether they are chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear. This is a very time-consuming process that needs to be carried out with particular attention, and often in stages. As hon. Members will appreciate, the substances have to be retrieved in accordance with forensic procedures. Very detailed health and safety provisions exist to protect the people doing that work. I am told that the forensic retrieval itself can take up to five days. Clinical procedures then have to be applied to the analysis. This often involves a staged process, in which one stage of the analysis has to be completed and the results obtained before a decision can be taken on the further direction of the analysis, in order to determine what the substance might be. The issue of dangerous substances provides a powerful example, and I readily appreciate the arguments that the police are using as to why extended periods beyond seven days might be necessary.
	Another example that the police are dealing with concerns the use of personal computers and the requisition of hard drives, after searches of premises and arrests have been made. It can take several days for material from a hard drive to be extracted, analysed and used in the questioning of a suspect. As Members will readily appreciate, in the case of a network of computers or computers that have been used to communicate with each other, the process of analysing the content of several hard drives and cross-referencing and matching communications before such information can be used in the questioning of suspects takes time.

Alan Beith: What the Minister says is undoubtedly true, but surely it is also true of a wide range of offences, including paedophilia, for example, in which the examination of the hard drives of suspects' computers is involved. Once she embarks on this reasoning, she will have difficulty in resisting the argument that such provisions should be widely used. In practice, the suspects of such offences are released, inquiries continue and the police have to use other means to ensure that they do not leave the country or become inaccessible.

Beverley Hughes: In making that point, the right hon. Gentleman is not taking into account the fact that we are not dealing with quite the same form of investigation. In a criminal case, a particular offence will be believed to have been committed and the investigation will be focused on evidence to support a charge for a particular event. In respect of terrorist suspects, somebody is most often arrested to prevent an event that intelligence has told the police and the security services might otherwise take place. That creates a different quality of investigation and justifies the need for allowing the police an extended period in order to put the information together.
	The right hon. Gentleman may also accept that, given the incidents that these provisions are trying to prevent, the order of damage to individual citizens of this country and the sheer number of people who would be injured were a terrorist event to take place, we are talking about a level of seriousness and an impact that is beyond that of perhaps not all, but certainly most, criminal offences. That is a further justification for the provisions.
	I draw Members' attention to a further example that is rather different from the average criminal case, and which does take more time. Of course, very often we are dealing with people who have been arrested as suspected terrorists, and who are using false identities or perhaps even multiple identities. As Members will appreciate, this involves the making of extensive national, and often international, inquiries. Frequently—although not always—interpreters are used, and much more so than in criminal cases. Indeed, interpreters of rather remote languages may be used. Interpreters then have to be used at all stages during the period of detention for interviews. That is another factor that can lengthen the period of time required.

Simon Hughes: I understand the Minister's arguments, but is she saying that because there are more investigations now, we are strapped for resources—the people to do the job quickly? Is she saying that the investigation of hard drives or chemical substances, for example, and checks with Interpol and foreign police forces now take place, but were not undertaken three years ago? When we looked at all the terrorism legislation, we provided not the two days that Lord Lloyd recommended or the four days that he recommended in exceptional cases, but seven days to allow for leeway. What has changed in those three years? Has there been a huge increase in the number of cases and, because we do not have enough people, we have to allow a longer period, or are those entirely different things? Some of us would be sceptical if the Minister said that they were.

Beverley Hughes: It is not the number of cases and the need to detain people longer so that we can make proper use of the available resources; it is the growing appreciation of the increasing sophistication of methodologies used by terrorists, their access to technology, whether equipment or particular substances. There is greater evidence of more sophisticated approaches, but we also have a greater understanding of what needs to be done so that we use our investigation processes to get as much out of the investigation as possible and obtain usable evidence to press charges.

David Heath: I am interested in the technical response to the terrorist threat. One of the limiting factors that the Minister is describing is the difficulty of biological assay in response to a bio-terrorism threat and the time that it takes to analyse a pathogen. I recently saw some interesting work in the Livermore laboratory in the United States on a much faster assay process. Is Britain buying into that sort of technology so that investigative processes can be speeded up for the benefit of our defences?

Beverley Hughes: We are certainly keeping up to speed with all the developments in that area. I would not like to imply, nor would I like the hon. Gentleman to assume, that we have tabled the amendment extending the time limit because our technology is not as advanced as that of other countries. As I have said, hon. Members will have to make a balanced judgment. They are getting at some undoubtedly important points, which I take seriously. Detaining people, whatever we suspect them of, is a serious matter for a democracy and it is right that hon. Members should question us about it. However, at the same time, they will have to judge whether, on balance, the limitation of liberty that is being proposed is proportionate and justified in a very small number of cases in relation to the serious harm that people suspected of such activities can potentially wreak on society. Different judgments will be made about that. We have reached our judgment on the basis of the practical experience of the police and their advice to us about the period of time that may be required in an admittedly small number of cases.
	I am sure that hon. Members will know that there are a significant number of safeguards in schedule 8 already. We have built further safeguards into the formulation of the amendment. It is not proposed, for example, that the court should be given the power to issue a warrant authorising 14 days of detention on the first occasion on which a warrant for an extension of detention is sought. Rather, the court will be able to extend the period in the warrant for more than seven days only if the warrant already authorises detention for the maximum seven days that is currently permitted. To think through the process, the police will be able to detain for 48 hours, and if they then apply to the court for an extension, the maximum that the court can allow at that point is seven days. If further time is needed, the police will have to come before the court again and explain why. The court will have to satisfy itself of the conditions.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Beverley Hughes: If I can just finish the point. We have already seen from the operation of the current provisions that the courts are rightly exercising some caution and judiciousness in respect of the periods of time that they grant. They do not necessarily grant the entire period requested: they require the police to return and, if they need to, subsequently repeat the request for an extension rather than grant three or four days in one chunk.

Dominic Grieve: By continuing with her explanation, the Minister has answered my question. It would be considered perfectly routine if the courts were granting extensions beyond seven days only in periods of 24 or 48 hours.

Beverley Hughes: That is certainly how the power is exercised currently and it is what we expect in the future because of the conditions that have to be satisfied and also because the courts take their responsibilities seriously.

Alan Beith: That certainly helps our understanding. However, I am concerned about the Minister's argument that using the procedure might stop a major incident. That is a powerful argument, but in such circumstances, the people taken into custody are unlikely to proceed if it had been their intention to do so, because their cover has been blown. When it becomes possible to link them to others, the operation would almost certainly change and others would be drawn into it. If it were believed that they were preparing to commit an offence themselves, they could be pursued on the basis of a criminal charge and the matter could be taken further in that way. The idea that taking such people into custody will not disturb an organisation's plans seems rather confused.

Beverley Hughes: I do not think so. It is in the nature of these incidents that we have to deal with hypothetical circumstances. We cannot know what we have disturbed and interrupted by acting on the intelligence of the security services. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have to act on the intelligence that we have. We may never know how effective it might have been in interrupting a planned operation, but we have to do all that we can on the basis of the intelligence that we possess. That means arresting people whom we suspect to be engaged in planning a particular operation or engaged more generally in activities that are likely to lead to terrorist acts as defined in the legislation.
	Terrorism is a reserved matter, so the new clause will apply throughout the United Kingdom. It will come into effect by order after Royal Assent. As I said in an earlier response to a question put by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—for which I was grateful—the application and use of the power will be subject to annual review by the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000, Lord Carlile.
	Because of time pressures, I shall not speak at great length and steal the thunder of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen who—

Chris Mullin: I should be grateful if the Minister would address the issues relating to new clause 56, as there may not be another opportunity for her to do so.

Beverley Hughes: I am happy to do so if my hon. Friend wishes me to deal with it in that way. In any case, I was intending to deal with the amendments, albeit briefly.
	Amendment (a) accepts that a period of detention greater than seven days might be required for the police to complete their investigations. Notwithstanding the interventions of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) so far, I am grateful that the amendment accepts that principle. The problem is that it ignores the advice that we have had from the police, based on the practicalities of dealing with a suspected terrorist in custody. When I introduced these provisions, I made it clear why we think that an additional three days would not be sufficient. I have tried to outline the safeguards and, in particular, the way in which the judicial authorities will operate the new clause, only authorising extra time if the police have made a case for it. That is the ultimate safeguard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asks about his new clause 56. Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 sets out the key detention requirements, which apply across the UK, such as the period of time a person can be detained under section 41 or schedule 7, review of the detention, authorisation and access to solicitors. The way in which those various requirements are regulated varies slightly across the legal jurisdictions in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
	In England and Wales, detention of terrorist suspects is covered by PACE codes of practice, in Northern Ireland it is governed by a code of practice made under section 99 of the 2000 Act, and Scotland does not have a PACE equivalent. I am talking specifically about the use of recordings, to which my hon. Friend's new clause refers. All interviews in the UK under the Terrorism Act 2000 are audio recorded and that is governed by the UK-wide code of practice for the audio recording of interviews under that Act. That code goes wider than PACE code E, which is the equivalent PACE code of practice for tape recording interviews with suspects. It allows for a consistent approach to Terrorism Act interviews across the UK, whereas PACE applies only to England and Wales.
	Previously there was a code for Northern Ireland and administrative systems in England, Wales and Scotland, and that led to considerable inconsistency in approach and the Government's decision to lay down a code of practice in the Terrorism Act 2000. Because we already have a code of practice that goes wider than PACE code E, I ask my hon. Friend not to press his new clause, or I shall ask the House to resist it.
	Although my hon. Friend's new clause refers specifically to recordings and to the application of PACE to recordings, I am aware that he may have concerns that go wider than the recording issue and relate to how people are treated in detention and whether some of the other codes of practice under PACE should apply to people detained under the 2000 Act. I know that my hon. Friend has had a detailed letter from the Home Secretary today in response to an informal meeting that took place with members of the Home Affairs Committee on that point. The Home Secretary has laid out an explanation of how code C of PACE—about the way in which people are treated, including the conditions, the framework for interview sessions and the general conduct of the police—applies to persons arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act. I hope that that explanation satisfies my hon. Friend. Code C also recognises the slightly different procedures on some points that are found in schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, and that are required to deal with terrorists and the different circumstances of such offences. As I said earlier, the investigations are often not of a particular offence but of suspicions about potential hypothetical situations. Therefore, the PACE codes in their entirety cannot apply because they cannot accommodate those different characteristics.
	PACE code C applies generally and the new code goes wider than PACE code E on the recording issue. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend is assured that the general circumstances that apply to all detainees under PACE apply to people detained under the 2000 Act.

Chris Mullin: My hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that I received a very helpful letter from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary today. I want to be sure that detention for up to 14 days will not be used as a device for breaking down people who have not broken down in the first seven days of detention.
	I completely understand the point about technology and so on, but I want to be certain that the necessary safeguards are in place to prevent what I have described from happening and to ensure, for example, that interrogation of a person will always take place in the presence of that person's solicitor. My hon. Friend the Minister has dealt with the point about tape recordings. I seek her assurance that the provision will not be used to break down people who have not broken down previously.

Beverley Hughes: As I have said, for people detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, the procedures involved in interview sessions, and the conduct of those sessions, will be governed by PACE code C. No difference in procedure is involved there, and I am awaiting clarification in respect of my hon. Friend's question as to whether solicitors always have to be present. My hon. Friend may be aware that, in cases such as we are discussing, some differences exist between schedule 8 of the 2000 Act and PACE code C in connection with legal advice, how quickly it has to be provided, and so on. However, in general terms, all the provisions in respect of interview sessions and conduct will continue to be governed by PACE code C.
	In addition, the provisions covering the responsibilities of the senior investigating officer and the custody officer remain the same. The senior investigating officer constantly has to review developments as the investigation goes on in order to satisfy the overarching obligation in paragraph 37 of schedule 8 to the 2000 Act, which demands that the police must constantly assure themselves that the two criteria for detention, of which the court must be satisfied, continue to be met.
	In addition, at each change of shift by the custody officer—that is, every 8 to 12 hours—a recorded welfare interview is carried out to ensure that the prisoner is in good health, requires no medical assistance, and that everything is as it should be. There is therefore no difference between the conditions for people detained under the terrorism provisions and those for people detained under criminal procedures.
	My hon. Friend asked whether a solicitor would always be present. I am advised that the solicitor can be excluded from interviews only during the first 48 hours, as provided under section 41 of the 2000 Act. The solicitor is present during any period of extension after the 48 hours.
	I hope that I have answered the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. I commend Government new clause 45 to the House.

Dominic Grieve: The new clause is not an ill reflection on the Government, but it is a dreadful reflection on the state of our society that the Government should feel the need to come to the House and ask for such a draconian extension of powers. In any other circumstances, I think that most hon. Members would regard that extension as a very serious matter. It remains so, but it may be justified by the state of the threat to which this country is subject. I hope that the Government would never otherwise ask the House to approve individuals being detained for up to 14 days without charge, while criminal investigations against them take place.
	The Opposition will certainly not stand in the way of powers if they are needed to prevent a serious terrorist threat to this country—although I am bound to point out that there will be quite a long delay before they reach the statute book. In the meantime, although the Government have, presumably, assessed the threat as serious, the power does not exist.
	In view of the late stage at which the provision has been introduced, it is difficult for us to take a reasoned view as to whether it is necessary. I am very mindful of what the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration told the House a few moments ago and I am fully aware that there are issues of secrecy and confidentiality about the reasons, which may or may not exist, that the police have been unable to conclude their investigations into suspect terrorists whom they have arrested. I can understand that if the police release a suspected terrorist after six days, they will not necessarily indicate to him that they have done so only because they have not had time to collate the evidence against him, but will simply say that the time is up and he is being released.
	The weakest part of the Minister's argument, however, was her inability to provide examples from past investigations where the police felt that the power was absolutely necessary. I am mindful of the reasons that she gave us, but I very much hope that, even if it is on a Privy Council basis, some information will be supplied to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) or to some other suitable person in my party, to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee or to Liberal Democrat Members, so that we can make a proper assessment of the need for such a draconian power. To introduce such a power in peacetime is unprecedented. Detention for 14 days without charge is a very long time indeed.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman is describing the weakest part of the Minister's argument, but would he address the strongest point of her presentation? The Minister referred to the assessment made by Lord Carlile. He has striven hard to normalise the Northern Ireland legislation on terrorism and has found no fault in the provisions in the Bill. Surely to goodness, that should weigh heavily in the Opposition's decision this evening.

Dominic Grieve: I am sure that Lord Carlile's opinion will be taken into account. However, I am sure that the Minister will readily accept our difficulty: the proposal has been made at a late stage of the Bill's proceedings and it is draconian. I am sure that the Minister will not disagree. If the provision goes into the statute book, I very much hope that it is kept under constant review, with a view to its removal from the statute book as soon as possible, because I do not like the idea that individuals could be detained for up to 14 days without charge. That is a serious matter.
	Indeed, the extension of the power to seven days was already a serious matter, although I fully accept the justification for doing so. One can only assume that the Minister's view is that the threat and its nature go far beyond that posed by, for example, the IRA even at the height of the troubles. The Minister alluded to some of the reasons for her view. She mentioned chemical, biological and radiological weaponry and the need to carry out tests. Those are grave matters and we shall take them seriously into account. We shall certainly not oppose the new clause at this stage.
	However, I hope that between now and the scrutiny of the proposal in another place there will be an opportunity to hold full briefings for Members of Opposition parties about the background reasons for the new clause, in so far as the Government can give them. Will the Government also give us some detail about the trouble experienced by the police in respect of the seven-day rule in the past?
	The Minister provided some examples of hypothetical problems, but there is an enormous difference between a hypothetical problem and one that has actually occurred. We must be careful that we do not end up with a situation in which, because the police think that the provision might be a useful tool in a hypothetical setting, we simply say, "Yes, of course you must have it." It is offensive to civil liberties that people should be detained for 14 days.
	I shall pick up on a very important point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—in relation to new clause 56, which he tabled: the longer a person is detained, the more worrying the weight and reliability of any evidence obtained from that person. We would not want challenges to be made under the Human Rights Act 1998, on the basis that the confession statement made on the 12th or 13th day should be excluded because the total circumstances of detention were such that it would be quite wrong to admit that statement. That is a hypothetical possibility, but it is one against which the Government should guard and be very mindful.
	I do not wish to take up the House's time, so I simply tell the Minister that we will not oppose the measure at this stage, but we will keep it under review in the hope that it will be debated fully in another place. We would like to hear an explanation of the necessity of including the measure, in so far as the Government can provide one, particularly because it is not as though it will come into operation tomorrow in any event.
	We appear to be in a period of great threat and I have no reason to disagree with the Government's assessment, given the explanations that they have provided, but where we will be in October, or whenever the Bill becomes law, is another matter. So, for a period at any rate, the police will not enjoy this power, which they appear to be seeking as a matter of urgency. I very much hope therefore that, at the end of the consideration of the Bill, we will be able to be fully confident of the necessity of including this draconian measure.

Chris Mullin: As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) says, this is quite a large power for the Government to seek, and they have done so at rather a late stage—I think that I got a telephone call the Friday before last—so my Committee and, indeed, the House have not been able to give the proposal the consideration that it perhaps needs, although the Home Secretary was very generous in making time available for an informal meeting to discuss this and one or two other last-minute additions to the Bill.
	Although the Minister, for reasons that I perfectly understand, is not able to give hard examples of why the power is needed, I am able to give hard examples of how we got into the mess on terrorism some years ago. Let me say at the outset that I completely understand and accept that things have moved on light years since then, and I do not suggest that we are back there, but I am suggesting that I do not want the House to approve of things that might take us back in that general direction.
	In the mid-1970s, there was a series of major terrorist offences on the British mainland—the M62 coach bombing, the bombings at Guildford and Woolwich and the Birmingham bombing—all of which occurred within 18 months of one another. In total, 18 people were convicted in connection with those bombings, and they were all sent away for very long periods. I think that I am right in saying—I say this off the top of my head—that 10 of those 18 people signed confessions in custody, explaining how they had carried out those bombings. In due course, all those confessions proved to be false. There is evidence that, in some cases—certainly, in the Guildford case and possibly in that of Judith Ward—those who took them knew that they were false when they were obtaining them.
	In addition to the terrorist cases, there have been a number of other cases where people have been convicted of murder solely on the basis of confessions obtained in police custody, often with no other evidence whatever. One or two people convicted of murder on that basis in the 1970s or early 1980s are still in jail today.The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was introduced in the mid-1980s because of all that, and it laid down a strict regime for how people should be treated in police custody. The same provisions have been gradually extended to terrorism legislation, as the Minister explained a moment ago. Although there is a complicated tangle of schedules and codes, by and large, the standards laid down for the treatment of suspects in custody are more or less the same, with one or two minor exceptions. For example, the length of time that a solicitor can be withheld from someone is 36 hours for serious criminal offences and 48 hours for terrorism. We want to keep it that way. It will not make it any easier to combat terrorism if people own up to things that they did not do, as that will have to be unravelled years later, apart from the fact that those who did carry out whatever the atrocity would get away with it.

Lady Hermon: I listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman, even when I left my place for a moment to correct something. In the context of Northern Ireland, I was on the Standing Committee that reviewed the code of practice for video recording introduced under the Terrorism Act 2000. I assure him that there was wide consultation on the code and that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland raised no objection to it. The hon. Gentleman's fears in relation to past cases would not be realised in the future. The system has been tightened up greatly, to the benefit of everyone, including police officers who are often wrongly accused of misusing or abusing defendants in custody.

Chris Mullin: Yes, I accept that that is so. All I am saying is that I do not want us to agree to anything that would send us back in the direction from which we came. We got into rather a big mess, and although it is true that these standards now apply, such as those governing the recording of interviews in Northern Ireland, they were not achieved without a struggle. Indeed, as for recording, the usual suspects resisted until almost the last moment in some cases.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Mullin: No. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I do not want to get distracted by going down that particular alleyway.
	I tabled new clause 56 in the hope of flushing out these points from the Minister, and she has given the assurances that I sought. She has also explained the various relevant schedules, which I wanted on the record rather than in a friendly letter from the Home Secretary. I am grateful for that, and I will not press the new clause to a vote. All that I would say is that once such a power is conceded it is rarely taken back again, and I fear that it will be with us for a long time.

Simon Hughes: I take a similar approach on this matter to that expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The proposition has come late in the day, as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has said. We have therefore had no chance to consider it in detail in Committee, which is a disadvantage. It strikes me that the speed with which it was introduced was unnecessary, because if it were really urgent, we would not be legislating now with a view to implementation in the autumn. The case for changing the law to double the period for which people can be held without charge surely cannot be so urgent that it was only thought of two weeks ago and so urgent that it needs to be introduced today. I am unhappy about the procedure, and the Government have not explained how it is justified.
	The questions that I asked the Minister, and amendment (a) tabled by my hon. Friends and by me, are meant to test that proposition, as the Minister understood. She has made arguments, which I understand, and the police have put a case to her. A second disadvantage is that nobody has independently verified the justification for that case—there has been no opportunity for the matter to go to the Home Affairs Committee and for it to take evidence on it. There has been no chance for the matter to go to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for it to take evidence, look into the human rights implications and consider its compatibility with our international obligations. My understanding is that it would not be the normal procedure of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to look into these matters on a routine basis. None the less, it would have been possible to speak to it and to get its view. Although the Minister made it clear that Lord Carlile of Berriew has been informed of the proposition, he has not reported on it. He has produced annual reports and recommended various changes, but he has not recommended the provision. Its only source is the argument of the police, which is backed up by the Government's willingness to introduce it.
	I understand that the police think that they need the powers and that the case for longer detention might have changed. However, it strikes me that we must be careful that the case is justified on historical fact. I am sure that that is why the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked how often the seven-day ceiling had been reached and it is also why I asked the number of times that the police have detained people for the maximum time permitted. The answer was 16 times in the most recent full year for which figures are available and the Minister told us that it happened a further 16 times in the past three months. Such information might strengthen the case for extending the period, but only for extending it by a little.
	Liberal Democrat amendment (a) would change the period of detention to 10 days. Lord Lloyd of Berwick proposed a period of two days in 2000, although he made the concession of a four-day period in exceptional cases. The Government then asked for the period to be changed to seven days. However, doubling that period within three years could be a step too far.
	Liberal Democrats are, of course, consoled by the facts that there will be judicial oversight and that the police will have to go to the courts to make their case. We are reassured that the Minister reported that the magistrate does not necessarily grant the whole period and often insists that the police come back after a day or two, which means that only small periods may be granted. Although our worries will not make us oppose the measure today, we shall try to get to the bottom of the matter in the House of Lords. It might be the case that we should accept the extension of the period by only a further three days—the 10-day period that we have suggested—or that there should be a sunset provision so that the extension of the period would last for only a year or two. Parliament would then legislate again if it wanted to retain the exceptional measure. Irrespective of the justification for a significant removal of people's civil liberties and a significant increase of the state's power, we must be careful not to do that without having the opportunity to recover the position in more normal times, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said.

Lady Hermon: I have always greatly admired what the hon. Gentleman has said on human rights. I know that he will accept that the most fundamental right is the right to life. It is important that we remember that we are facing terrorists who will use all sorts of appalling weapons, such as biological weapons, that we did not see in Northern Ireland during the 30 years of IRA terrorist violence. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the campaign of terrorism throughout the world in the past week and fortnight and remember that we are trying to preserve the fundamental right of life in the battle against terrorism?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady does perfectly well to remind us of that and she knows that I share that view. Those who are determined to commit the most unspeakable offences, with no warning, against unknown numbers of people—often entirely innocent people with no relation to the issues that concern the perpetrators—deserve to be caught, arrested and dealt with by society in the most serious way possible. She is right that such terrorism is in a different league from even that during the many years of the Northern Ireland troubles.
	That point explains why, if I had the choice, I would rather that there were a slightly longer period for which people could be detained before charge. It is better to restrict liberty in such cases under careful judicial oversight than to go down the road of detaining people indefinitely without trial. One of the great constitutional changes of recent years means that people are this very week being held in custody, perhaps indefinitely, and their cases are being taken up by the courts. It is a greater loss of liberty to detain someone indefinitely without trial. That is why we are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt and to allow a slightly longer period to investigate whether a case really has been made. A person can then be charged if there is a case and released if there is not. That is a less severe restriction on someone's liberty in the interests of the greater good than locking people up indefinitely so that they never know when they might be released.
	Those are the balances that we seek to strike and they involve the most important and difficult issues. It is our job to scrutinise the Executive. We may propose a limited duration and, possibly, a slightly more limited extension than the Government advocate when the Bill is considered in the House of Lords.

Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said in his concluding remarks, the judgments are difficult, and the international context in which they are set makes them even more difficult and sensitive. I agree that the civil liberties of individuals who might be suspected of terrorism is important, not least for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), but we have to balance that against the civil liberties of all the citizens of this country who also have a right in a democracy to expect to live their lives free from the fear and possibility of harm by people who act in that way. It is increasingly necessary to balance the public good against the rights of individuals.
	It might help the House if I set out the safeguards. In trying to strike a balance, we must recognise that the context is very different from what it was some years ago, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said. The Terrorism Act 2000, and schedule 8 provisions for the extension of detention in particular, is subjected to PACE code C and specific codes of practice under that Act. There must be judicial authorisation after 48 hours for any extension of detention and there is access to solicitors throughout unless there is good reason to exclude that arrangement in the first 48 hours only. There is audio recording of all interviews and video recording of all interviews in Northern Ireland. There is a detention review throughout by the police and an annual review by Lord Carlile, who I am sure will examine the issue. Northern Ireland also has an independent commissioner for detained terrorist suspects.
	Although that might not assuage all concerns completely, especially if they are based on points of principle, it is clear that there is a battery of safeguards. I hope that they give some comfort to hon. Members.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26
	 — 
	Criminal Record Certificates: Amendments of Part 5 of Police Act 1997

'Schedule (Criminal record certificates: amendments of Part 5 of Police Act 1997) (which contains amendments of Part 5 of the Police Act 1997) shall have effect.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new schedule 1—Criminal record certificates: amendments of Part 5 of Police Act 1997—and amendment (a) thereto.
	Government amendment No. 196.

Paul Goggins: New clause 26 and new schedule 1 make a number of amendments to part 5 of the Police Act 1997, which sets out the statutory framework under which the Criminal Records Bureau operates. Amendment No. 196 makes a consequential amendment to the long title.
	The House will be aware of the difficulties faced by the Criminal Records Bureau in the first few months following the launch of the disclosure service in March 2002. As a result of those difficulties, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appointed an independent review team to take a fundamental look at the operations of the Criminal Records Bureau. These new additions to the Bill flow directly from the review team's recommendations.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his remarks. He referred to some difficulties. In fact, it was a total debacle, was it not? Will he confirm that Capita has been required to pay £1.8 million in penalties for non-compliance with the requirements of the system? Will he confirm or deny that the charges for individual users of the checks will go up threefold, from £12 to more than £30?

Paul Goggins: I can confirm the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions. Capita has been ordered to pay about £1.8 million in fines. That was because of its poor performance. There has been some correspondence between my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) and one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. I am happy to say that that exchange has been concluded with a written answer to a question, which was one of the early responsibilities that I had to meet.
	It is important to stress that the independent review team's recommendations should be viewed against the backdrop of a sustained improvement in the Criminal Record Bureau's performance since last autumn. The bureau is now issuing an average of 40,000 disclosures a week, compared with 24,500 last August, and the average turn-around time for new applications is now less than five weeks. We cannot, however, be complacent. We need to build on these improvements in performance and ensure that the Criminal Records Bureau has the necessary capacity to meet all the demand for its services, particularly in relation to higher-level disclosures.
	That is where the review team's recommendations and the amendments to the Police Act 1997 come in. The Criminal Records Bureau is a vital element of the Government's programme to improve the protection of children and vulnerable adults from those who might wish to harm them. To meet that objective, the Criminal Records Bureau must be placed on a sounder footing.
	The amendments to the 1997 Act give effect to four of the review team's recommendations. First, they recognise and upgrade the critical role of registered bodies. The Criminal Records Bureau is too remote from an applicant for a disclosure to carry out the identity validation process effectively. This role—
	It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of business to be concluded at that hour pursuant to Orders [2 April and 19 May]
	Motion made, and Question put, That new clauses 26 and 40 and new schedules 1 to 3 be added to the Bill:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.
	Joan Ryan and Charlotte Atkins were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
	Clause 26 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 40
	 — 
	Offence of Outraging Public Decency Triable Either Way

'(1) After paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43) (offences triable either way by virtue of section 17) there is inserted—
	"1A An offence at common law of outraging public decency.".
	(2) This section does not apply in relation to any offence committed before the commencement of this section.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1
	 — 
	Criminal Record Certificates: Amendments of Part 5 of Police Act 1997

1 The Police Act 1997 (c. 50) is amended as follows.
	2 In section 112 (criminal conviction certificates), in subsection (1)(a), after "prescribed" there is inserted "manner and".
	3 (1) Section 113 (criminal record certificates) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (4A)",
	(b) in paragraph (a), after "prescribed" there is inserted "manner and",
	(c) in paragraph (b), after "pays" there is inserted "in the prescribed manner".
	(3) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
	"(4A) The Secretary of State may treat an application under this section as an application under section 115 if—
	(a) in his opinion the certificate is required for a purpose prescribed under subsection (2) of that section,
	(b) the registered person provides him with the statement required by subsection (2) of that subsection, and
	(c) the applicant consents and pays to the Secretary of State the amount (if any) by which the fee payable in relation to an application under section 115 exceeds the fee paid in relation to the application under this section.".
	4 (1) Section 115 (enhanced criminal record certificates) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (9A),", and
	(b) in paragraph (a), after "prescribed" there is inserted "manner and".
	(c) in paragraph (b), after "pays" there is inserted "in the prescribed manner".
	(3) In subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) to (c) there is substituted "for such purposes as may be prescribed under this subsection".
	(4) Subsections (3) to (5) and subsections (6C) to (6E) are omitted.
	(5) After subsection (9) there is inserted—
	"(9A) The Secretary of State may treat an application under this section as an application under section 113 if in his opinion the certificate is not required for a purpose prescribed under subsection (2).
	(9B) Where by virtue of subsection (9A) the Secretary of State treats an application under this section as an application under section 113, he must refund to the applicant the amount (if any) by which the fee paid in relation to the application under this section exceeds the fee payable in relation to an application under section 113."
	5 In section 116 (enhanced criminal record certificates: judicial appointments and Crown employment), in subsection (2)(b), for the words from "to which" onwards there is substituted "of such description as may be prescribed".
	6 (1) Section 120 (registered persons) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (2) there is substituted—
	"(2) Subject to regulations under section 120ZA and 120AA and to section 120A the Secretary of State shall include in the register any person who—
	(a) applies to him in writing to be registered,
	(b) satisfies the conditions in subsections (4) to (6), and
	(c) has not in the period of two years ending with the date of the application been removed from the register under section 120A or 120AA."
	(3) Subsection (3) is omitted.
	7 After section 120 there is inserted—
	"120ZA Regulations about registration.
	(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about registration.
	(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision for—
	(a) the payment of fees,
	(b) the information to be included in the register,
	(c) the registration of any person to be subject to conditions,
	(d) the nomination by—
	(i) a body corporate or unincorporate, or
	(ii) a person appointed to an office by virtue of any enactment,
	of the individuals authorised to act for it or, as the case may be, him in relation to the countersigning of applications under this Part, and
	(e) the refusal by the Secretary of State, on such grounds as may be specified in or determined under the regulations, to accept or to continue to accept the nomination of a person as so authorised.
	(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(c) includes provision—
	(a) for the registration or continued registration of any person to be subject to prescribed conditions or, if the regulations so provide, such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and
	(b) for the Secretary of State to vary or revoke those conditions.
	(4) The conditions imposed by virtue of subsection (2)(c) may in particular include conditions—
	(a) requiring a registered person, before he countersigns an application at an individual's request, to verify the identity of that individual in the prescribed manner,
	(b) requiring an application under section 113 or 115 to be transmitted by electronic means to the Secretary of State by the registered person who countersigns it, and
	(c) requiring a registered person to comply with any code of practice for the time being in force under section 122."
	8 At the end of the sidenote to section 120A (refusal and cancellation of registration) there is inserted "on grounds related to disclosure".
	9 After section 120A there is inserted—
	"120AA Refusal, cancellation or suspension of registration on other grounds
	(1) Regulations may make provision enabling the Secretary of State in prescribed cases to refuse to register a person who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is likely to countersign fewer applications under this Part in any period of twelve months than a prescribed minimum number.
	(2) Subsection (3) applies where a registered person—
	(a) is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, no longer likely to wish to countersign applications under this Part,
	(b) has, in any period of twelve months during which he was registered, countersigned fewer applications under this Part than the minimum number specified in respect of him by regulations under subsection (1), or
	(c) has failed to comply with any condition of his registration.
	(3) Subject to section 120AB, the Secretary of State may—
	(a) suspend that person's registration for such period not exceeding 6 months as the Secretary of State thinks fit, or
	(b) remove that person from the register.
	120AB Procedure for cancellation or suspension under section 120AA
	(1) Before cancelling or suspending a person's registration by virtue of section 120AA, the Secretary of State must send him written notice of his intention to do so.
	(2) Every such notice must—
	(a) give the Secretary of State's reasons for proposing to cancel or suspend the registration, and
	(b) inform the person concerned of his right under subsection (3) to make representations.
	(3) A person who receives such a notice may, within 21 days of service, make representations in writing to the Secretary of State as to why the registration should not be cancelled or suspended.
	(4) After considering such representations, the Secretary of State must give the registered person written notice—
	(a) that at the end of a further period of six weeks beginning with the date of service, the person's registration will be cancelled or suspended, or
	(b) that he does not propose to take any further action.
	(5) If no representations are received within the period mentioned in subsection (3) the Secretary of State may cancel or suspend the person's registration at the end of the period mentioned in that subsection.
	(6) Subsection (1) does not prevent the Secretary of State from imposing on the registered person a lesser sanction than that specified in the notice under that subsection.
	(7) Any notice under this section that is required to be given in writing may be given by being transmitted electronically.
	(8) This section does not apply where—
	(a) the Secretary of State is satisfied, in the case of a registered person other than a body, that the person has died or is incapable, by reason of physical or mental impairment, of countersigning applications under this Part, or
	(b) the registered person has requested to be removed from the register.
	(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (4)(a) by substituting for the period there specified, such other period as may be specified in the regulations."
	10 After section 122 there is inserted—
	"122A Delegation of functions of Secretary of State
	(1) The Secretary of State may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, delegate any relevant function of his under this Part to such person as he may determine.
	(2) A function is relevant for the purposes of subsection (1) if it does not consist of a power—
	(a) to make regulations, or
	(b) to publish or revise a code of practice or to lay any such code before Parliament.
	(3) A delegation under subsection (1) may be varied or revoked at any time."
	11 After section 124 (offences: disclosure) there is inserted—
	"124A Further offences: disclosure of information obtained in connection with delegated function
	(1) Any person who is engaged in the discharge of functions conferred by this Part on the Secretary of State commits an offence if he discloses information which has been obtained by him in connection with those functions and which relates to a particular person unless he discloses the information, in the course of his duties,—
	(a) to another person engaged in the discharge of those functions,
	(b) to the chief officer of a police force in connection with a request under this Part to provide information to the Secretary of State, or
	(c) to an applicant or registered person who is entitled under this Part to the information disclosed to him.
	(2) Where information is disclosed to a person and the disclosure—
	(a) is an offence under subsection (1), or
	(b) would be an offence under subsection (1) but for subsection (3)(a), (d) or (e),
	the person to whom the information is disclosed commits an offence if he discloses it to any other person.
	(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure of information which is made—
	(a) with the written consent of the person to whom the information relates,
	(b) to a government department,
	(c) to a person appointed to an office by virtue of any enactment,
	(d) in accordance with an obligation to provide information under or by virtue of any enactment, or
	(e) for some other purpose specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
	(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both."
	12 In section 125 (regulations)—
	(a) subsection (3) is omitted, and
	(b) in subsection (4), the words "to which subsection (3) does not apply" are omitted.'—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2
	 — 
	'Determination of Minimum Term in Relation to Mandatory Life Sentence

Interpretation
	1 In this Schedule—
	"child" means a person under 18 years;
	"mandatory life sentence" means a life sentence passed in circumstances where the sentence is fixed by law;
	"minimum term", in relation to a mandatory life sentence, means the part of the sentence to be specified in an order under section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence);
	"whole life order" means an order under subsection (4) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence).
	2 Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (meaning of "racially or religiously aggravated") applies for the purposes of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 of that Act.
	3 For the purposes of this Schedule an offence is aggravated by sexual orientation where the offence would be racially or religiously aggravated if the references in section 28(1) and (2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) to a racial or religious group were a reference to a group of persons defined by reference to their sexual orientation.
	Starting points
	4 (1) If—
	(a) the court considers that the seriousness of the offence (or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it) is exceptionally high, and
	(b) the offender was aged 21 or over when he committed the offence,
	the appropriate starting point is a whole life order.
	(2) Cases that would normally fall within subparagraph (1)(a) include—
	(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following—
	(i) a substantial degree of premeditation or planning,
	(ii) the abduction of the victim, or
	(iii) sexual or sadistic conduct,
	(b) the murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation,
	(c) a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, or
	(d) a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder.
	5 (1) If—
	(a) the case does not fall within paragraph 4(1) but the court considers that the seriousness of the offence (or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it) is particularly high, and
	(b) the offender was aged 18 or over when he committed the offence,
	the appropriate starting point, in determining the minimum term, is 30 years.
	(2) Cases that (if not falling within paragraph 4(1)) would normally fall within subparagraph (1)(a) include—
	(a) the murder of a police officer or prison officer in the course of his duty,
	(b) a murder involving the use of a firearm or explosive,
	(c) a murder done for gain (such as a murder done in the course or furtherance of robbery or burglary, done for payment or done in the expectation of gain as a result of the death),
	(d) a murder intended to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice,
	(e) a murder involving sexual or sadistic conduct,
	(f) the murder of two or more persons,
	(g) a murder that is racially or religiously aggravated or aggravated by sexual orientation, or
	(h) a murder falling within paragraph 4(2) committed by an offender who was aged under 21 when he committed the offence.
	6 In a case not falling within paragraph 4(1) or 5(1), the appropriate starting point, in determining the minimum term, is 15 years.
	Aggravating and mitigating factors
	7 Having chosen a starting point, the court should take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors, to the extent that it has not allowed for them in its choice of starting point.
	8 Detailed consideration of aggravating or mitigating factors may result in a minimum term of any length (whatever the starting point), or in the making of a whole life order.
	9 Aggravating factors (additional to those mentioned in paragraph 4(2) and 5(2)) that may be relevant to the offence of murder include—
	(a) a significant degree of planning or premeditation,
	(b) the fact that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of age or disability,
	(c) mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death,
	(d) the abuse of a position of trust,
	(e) the use of duress or threats against another person to facilitate the commission of the offence,
	(f) the fact that the victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty, and
	(g) concealment, destruction or dismemberment of the body.
	10 Mitigating factors that may be relevant to the offence of murder include—
	(a) an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill,
	(b) lack of premeditation,
	(c) the fact that the offender suffered from any mental disorder or mental disability which (although not falling within section 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957 (c. 11)), lowered his degree of culpability,
	(d) the fact that the offender was provoked (for example, by prolonged stress) in a way not amounting to a defence of provocation,
	(e) the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence,
	(f) a belief by the offender that the murder was an act of mercy, and
	(g) the age of the offender.
	11 Nothing in this Schedule restricts the application of—
	(a) section 128(2) (previous convictions),
	(b) section 128(3) (bail), or
	(c) section 129 (guilty plea).'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3
	 — 
	'Mandatory Life Sentences: Transitional Cases

Interpretation
	1 In this Schedule—
	"the commencement date" means the day on which section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) comes into force;
	"the early release provisions" means the provisions of section 28(5) to (8) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43);
	"existing prisoner" means a person serving a mandatory life sentence passed before the commencement date;
	"mandatory life sentence" means a sentence of imprisonment for life or custody for life passed in England and Wales in circumstances where the sentence was fixed by law.
	Existing prisoners notified by Secretary of State
	2 Paragraph 3 applies in relation to any existing prisoner who has before the commencement date been notified in writing by the Secretary of State (otherwise than in a notice that is expressed to be provisional) either—
	(a) of a minimum period which in the view of the Secretary of State should be served before the prisoner's release on licence, or
	(b) that the Secretary of State does not intend that the prisoner should ever be released on licence.
	3 (1) On the application of the existing prisoner, the High Court must either—
	(a) order that the early release provisions are to apply to him as soon as he has served the part of the sentence which is specified in the order, which in a case falling within paragraph 2(a) must not be greater than the notified minimum term, or
	(b) in a case falling within paragraph 2(b), order that the early release provisions are not to apply to the offender.
	(2) In a case falling within paragraph 2(a), no application may be made under this paragraph after the end of the notified minimum term.
	(3) Where no application under this paragraph is made in a case falling within paragraph 2(a), the early release provisions apply to the prisoner as soon as he has served the notified minimum term (or, if he has served that term before the commencement date but has not been released, from the commencement date).
	(4) In this paragraph "the notified minimum term", means the minimum period notified as mentioned in paragraph 2(a), or where the prisoner has been so notified on more than one occasion, the period most recently so notified.
	4 (1) In dealing with an application under paragraph 3, the High Court must have regard to—
	(a) the seriousness of the offence, or of the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it,
	(b) where the court is satisfied that, if the prisoner had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the length of his sentence would have been treated by section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80) as being reduced by a particular period, the effect which that section would have had if he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and
	(c) the length of the notified minimum term or, where a notification falling within paragraph 2(b) has been given to the prisoner, to the fact that such a notification has been given.
	(2) In considering under subparagraph (1) the seriousness of the offence, or of the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, the High Court must have regard to—
	(a) the general principles set out in Schedule (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence), and
	(b) any recommendation made to the Secretary of State by the trial judge or the Lord Chief Justice as to the minimum term to be served by the offender before release on licence.
	(3) In this paragraph "the notified minimum term" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3.
	Existing prisoners not notified by Secretary of State
	5 Paragraph 6 applies in relation to any existing prisoner who has not before the commencement date been notified as mentioned in paragraph 2(a) or (b) by the Secretary of State.
	6 The Secretary of State must refer the prisoner's case to the High Court for the making by the High Court of an order under subsection (2) or (4) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence).
	7 In considering under subsection (3) or (4) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) the seriousness of an offence (or the combination of an offence and one or more offences associated with it) in a case referred to the High Court under paragraph 6, the High Court must have regard not only to the matters mentioned in subsection (5) of that section but also to any recommendation made to the Secretary of State by the trial judge or the Lord Chief Justice as to the minimum term to be served by the offender before release on licence.
	8 In dealing with a reference under paragraph 6, the High Court—
	(a) may not make an order under subsection (2) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) specifying a part of the sentence which in the opinion of the court is greater than that which, under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002, the Secretary of State would have been likely to notify as mentioned in paragraph 2(a), and
	(b) may not make an order under subsection (4) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) unless the court is of the opinion that, under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002, the Secretary of State would have been likely to give the prisoner a notification falling within paragraph 2(b).
	Sentences passed on or after commencement date in respect of offences committed before that date
	9 Paragraph 10 applies where—
	(a) on or after the commencement date a court passes a life sentence in circumstances where the sentence is fixed by law, and
	(b) the offence to which the sentence relates was committed before the commencement date.
	10 The court—
	(a) may not make an order under subsection (2) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) specifying a part of the sentence which in the opinion of the court is greater than that which, under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002, the Secretary of State would have been likely to notify as mentioned in paragraph 2(a), and
	(b) may not make an order under subsection (4) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) unless the court is of the opinion that, under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002, the Secretary of State would have been likely to give the prisoner a notification falling within paragraph 2(b).
	Proceedings in High Court
	11 (1) An application under paragraph 3 or a reference under paragraph 6 is to be determined by a single judge of the High Court without an oral hearing.
	(2) In relation to such an application or reference, any reference to "the court" in section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) (2) to (5) and Schedule (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) is to be read as a reference to the High Court.
	Giving of reasons
	12 (1) Where the High Court makes an order under paragraph 3(1)(a) or (b), it must state in open court, in ordinary language, its reasons for deciding on the order made.
	(2) Where the order is an order under paragraph 3(1)(a) specifying a part of the sentence shorter than the notified minimum term the High Court must, in particular, state its reasons for departing from the notified minimum term.
	13 Where the High Court makes an order under subsection (2) or (4) of section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) on a reference under paragraph 6, subsection (2) of section (Duty to give reasons) does not apply.
	Right of appeal
	14 (1) A person who has made an application under paragraph 3 or in respect of whom a reference has been made under paragraph 6 may with the leave of the Court of Appeal appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court on the application or reference.
	(2) Section 1(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c. 65) (appeal to House of Lords from decision of High Court in a criminal cause or matter) and section 18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54) (exclusion of appeal from High Court to Court of Appeal in a criminal cause or matter) do not apply in relation to a decision to which subparagraph (1) applies.
	(3) The jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Appeal by this paragraph is to be exercised by the criminal division of that court.
	(4) Section 33(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (limitation on appeal from criminal division of Court of Appeal) does not prevent an appeal to the House of Lords under this paragraph.
	(5) In relation to appeals to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords under this paragraph, the Secretary of State may make an order containing provision corresponding to any provision in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) (subject to any specified modifications).
	Review of minimum term on reference by Attorney General
	15 Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) applies in relation to an order made by the High Court under paragraph 3(1)(a) as it applies in relation to an order made by the Crown Court under section (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) (2).
	Modification of early release provisions
	16 The early release provisions have effect in their application by virtue of paragraph 3(1)(a) or (3) to a person to whom paragraph 3 applies as if any reference to the relevant part of the sentence were a reference to the part specified in the order under paragraph 3(1)(a) or, as the case may be, to the notified minimum term as defined by paragraph 3(4).
	Transferred life prisoners
	17 In relation to an existing prisoner who immediately before the commencement date is a transferred life prisoner for the purposes of section 33 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43), this Schedule is to be read as if—
	(a) any certificate under subsection (2) of that section were a notification falling within paragraph 2(a) of this Schedule, and
	(b) references to any recommendation of the trial judge or the Lord Chief Justice were omitted.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it normal House practice for two hon. Members from the Government side to give their names to you as Tellers and to be sitting in a position ready to act as Tellers, but then to withdraw from the proceedings suddenly at a time when many hon. Members might have wanted to continue their protest about the incompetence of the Criminal Records Bureau by voting on the new clauses and new schedules, which have been the subject of only a couple of minutes' debate? Have you been told why the people who were ready to act as Tellers suddenly disappeared?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My job is simply to seek Tellers. When I seek the voices to say no in a Division, if nobody says no, I have no alternative but to call the Division off.

Title

Amendment made: No. 196, in title, line 3, after '1998' insert
	'and Part 5 of the Police Act 1997'.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Hugh Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this year, I introduced a private Member's Bill of one clause only that sought to increase the penalties for illegal trading in endangered species. On the Second Reading of that Bill, the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life gave me the following undertaking:
	"As I said, we hope to address this issue through amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill . . . In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said that he is prepared to withdraw the Bill on the basis of the assurances that I have given, I am certain that we can move forward in a way that will be applauded on both sides of this House."—[Official Report, 21 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 1260.]
	We are now moving to Third Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, there is no sign of the amendment and neither has the Minister contacted me to explain why it has not been tabled. As the occupant of the Chair acts as the protector of Back-Bench interests, can you give me any advice about how I can take up this matter with the Minister?

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government's assurance was repeated in the Standing Committee on 27 February, when the former Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), gave this explicit assurance:
	"we shall return to the issue on Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 2003; c. 1200.]
	On that basis, a very useful amendment was withdrawn by a Member of the Government party, so I think that the point raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has some force.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to both hon. Gentlemen that comments, assurances or any other utterances made by Ministers are not a matter for the Chair. However, those on the Government Front Bench are present in the Chamber and will no doubt have heard and taken note of the comments that have been made.
	Order for Third Reading read. 7.4 pm

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I said yesterday that I wanted to say a word of thanks to the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), who was my colleague as Under-Secretary at the Home Office until last week. I wish to repeat that. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members would be kind enough to listen, I shall deal with the point that they raised in a minute or two. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did throughout the time that the Bill was in Committee and for all his work in the Home Office. We wish him well on the international stage. I thank hon. Members from all parties who served on the Committee, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who was the Whip in Committee and has done a sterling job over the past few months, the past two days, and even the past few minutes. He has my undying gratitude and respect; I cannot say fairer than that.
	The Bill was considered in 32 sittings in Committee and for three days on Report and Third Reading, which I understand is a record in terms of the time allocated. We have brought about very challenging changes during the three days on Report and Third Reading.

David Amess: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: Despite the aggression coming from the hon. Gentleman, I shall.

David Amess: I wonder whether the Home Secretary heard clearly what my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) said about the assurance that was given in Committee about the Government providing an opportunity to introduce a measure that would protect endangered species. Will the Home Secretary now clearly comment on that issue?

David Blunkett: I said a moment ago—the loudness of the hon. Gentleman's voice must have clogged up his ears—that I would deal with the issue, and I shall. I have all sorts of problems in my life, but not fulfilling promises is not one of them. [Interruption.] Not yet, anyway.
	I was about to say, if my hon. Friends on the Back Benches will forgive me, that all wisdom is not confined to the Government Benches. We—certainly my hon. Friends in Committee—tried to demonstrate that by being prepared to listen and respond. We demonstrated it by making the amendment to part 10 that was welcomed yesterday, addressing the composition of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, and indicating that we are prepared to return to certain matters in the House of Lords.
	On the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, I was not aware that a commitment had been given. If it has, I give my personal guarantee that we will table an amendment in the Lords to deal with it. Had I been aware of it earlier, I would have ensured that we attempted to deal with it on Report here in the Commons.
	We benefited not only from debate in Committee, but from the work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We shall continue to pick up issues that have been raised over the past few days, not least this afternoon, when we had interesting discussion about sentencing in the debate that I led and in the subsequent debate on the Sentencing Guidelines Council. We should take that forward. We have said that we are prepared to listen and learn in respect of PACE codes, parliamentary scrutiny, prosecution interviews and defence witnesses.
	There are other areas on which we wish to act. As I said, we shall return to the amendment process in the Lords. We want to return to the issue of cases involving a multiplicity of charges where only specimen charges can be dealt with owing to the complexity or length of the trial, and the way in which that disables the public in getting true justice.
	I repeat my earlier comments that we want to ensure time for proper scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee between now and consideration in the Lords. Let me give an example for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the matter. Someone could be apprehended on a range of criminal offences to do with credit card fraud. However, only a specimen sentence could be applied. If we could bring back the whole range of sentences for that crime, as the Law Commission recommended, we could ensure that the sentence was commensurate with the number of offences. We want to revert to that subject.

Graham Allen: First, I endorse my right hon. Friend's comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) and his conduct in Committee when he was Under-Secretary in the Home Office. Both he and the Opposition Front-Bench Members made it a pleasure to serve on the Committee, perhaps not for the Government Whip, but for Back Benchers who could participate and make a genuine contribution to the Bill. That is greatly appreciated.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Great progress was made on that and I thank him and his colleagues for extending the membership of the council. Did I hear correctly that he retains an open mind? Is he open to persuasion about the need for additional members, perhaps even including him or members of the Select Committee Chairmen's panel?

David Blunkett: I have said that I am open to persuasion when there is a good case on any issue that we considered in Committee and on Report. When a rational and sensible case has been argued, we will consider an alternative solution to our proposals. For example, this afternoon, the official Opposition presented a coherent case for examining an alternative for juveniles and the mandatory 15 years for murder. I am prepared to consider a rational alternative. Governments should conduct their business in that way, especially when they have a large majority. I hope that that circumstance will prevail for a long time. Others should reciprocate by accepting that they must put their case in a manner that is conducive to achieving the Bill's intentions.
	I shall give an example of another issue, apart from multiple offending, that has disquieted the public for a long time. I believe that members of all parties want to tackle it and effect change. People who proportionately defend their person, their families or their homes sometimes find that the offender, who has intruded into their homes, has the audacity to claim compensation for injury incurred while committing burglary or another offence on their property. I believe that all hon. Members would want us to table amendments in the House of Lords to prevent offenders from turning the law on its head and making a victim of the offender through civil action.
	There has been much talk about the matter. I held a short dialogue on the radio at the end of February with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I gave a commitment to examine the issue. It has not been possible to find an acceptable solution yet, but with good will, we shall do that. I have not forgotten what I said on 27 February. There is good will and a willingness to find a coherent solution, and we want to do that.
	Common sense has prevailed in Committee. We have had sensible, sometimes vigorous debate during the three days on Report. The majority of hon. Members want us to get the Bill right because the purpose of being here is to change the world for the better, make a difference and ensure that perpetrators are put away, that those who are innocent are not wrongly convicted and, above all, that the public know that the system works in their interests. In moving Third Reading, I intend that we should, as a party and a Government, put those aims at the forefront of our consideration in the House of Lords.
	I have been deliberately low-key. I think that we have made tremendous progress, and that this is a flagship measure. The Bill, which I hope will receive Royal Assent in early autumn, will make a difference to people's lives and, above all, to the way in which they see the justice system. I invite all who work or have worked in that system to join us in ensuring that it progresses through all its stages, that we make the system work better, and that we make it work better not in the interests of history or vested interests but in the interests of those who elected us so we could create a safer, more secure world in which they could live, work and bring up their children. That is what we seek to do in the Bill.

Oliver Letwin: I echo what the Home Secretary said about a Minister who has departed from us but not from the Government—the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), who, along with Lord Falconer, handled proceedings here and, before that, elsewhere with delicacy, tact and intelligence. I also thank my hon. Friends who have laboured so mightily in the vineyard of the Standing Committee on a Bill that is both large and tortuous. I am sure that the Home Secretary is right in saying that significant progress was made there.
	Today, the Home Secretary was in his most charming and eirenic mode. I am tempted to reciprocate in kind, but I fear that I cannot quite do so.

Bob Ainsworth: Try!

Oliver Letwin: I have tried, but I have failed.
	I have accepted from the outset that the Bill contains things that are good. It would be nice if those things could be saved, but I do not think any of them is heroically wonderful, and I fear that in its present form the Bill includes proposals to which we cannot subscribe. They have been enumerated during our debates, but I am thinking of the provisions concerning DNA—late in the day—the double jeopardy provisions as currently constructed, the provisions relating to the retailing of previous bad character as currently constructed and, most notably, the provisions on trial by jury, which we debated yesterday.
	I do not think the Bill contains enough that is sufficiently good to overcome the harm that will be done if those provisions, in that form, become law. I hope that by the time we reach the end of the parliamentary process—which I suspect may be slightly later in the autumn than the Home Secretary suggested—those elements will have been changed to an extent that will make it possible for us to accept the Bill; but that is not the case today. I shall therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose Third Reading, although I hoped not to find myself in that position.
	The Home Secretary sighs with "melancholy, long, withdrawing roar", but that is all an act. In fact he is delighted that I am taking this stance, as it will enable him to say for months, whenever a criminal outrage occurs, that if only his Bill had not been opposed by a recalcitrant Opposition all would have been well—and while we are at it, we should bear it in mind that the Prime Minister will use the same excuse on every possible occasion during Prime Minister's Question Time. I am fully aware that that will be the sequel; but I could not live with myself if I suggested to my colleagues that we participate in the acceptance of propositions that I consider deeply offensive to those who care about fundamental liberties.
	I ought to say a further word, which is that there has been a tendency as the Bill has proceeded for the Home Secretary to regard it as a No. 11 bus on to which he can climb from time to time and deposit a new goody. He has arrested the bus at various stops and climbed on with new goodies with such energy and so prolifically that I cannot recall a Monday morning recently when I did not wake up to have somebody from the media ask me for a comment on the latest initiative that the Home Secretary has said will be included in the Bill.
	I have to admit that, in one case at least, I am also culpable, because I engaged in a spot of negotiation by airwave with the Home Secretary, and I am duly grateful to him for being willing to include whatever his version is of our amendment that would prevent burglars from suing. Largely, however, my record is clean while the Home Secretary's is not. He has introduced so many initiatives so hastily that the Bill contains much that was not in the White Paper, that was not discussed by the Home Affairs Committee in its full deliberations and that my hon. Friends and I have not had time properly to consider.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I attacked him yesterday. This is very courageous of him indeed. May I invite him to explain to my constituents, to whom the vast majority of the Bill sadly will not apply, why he and his party are to vote against Third Reading? The provisions on firearms and on sentencing will not apply to the people of North Down and of Northern Ireland, and I would love to see him give that explanation to them.

Oliver Letwin: It is with great delight that I can tell the hon. Lady, for whom I have considerable respect, that I would not dream of daring to address her constituents. She alone is capable of the business of explaining these things to them, and I have no doubt that she will do so with eloquence.
	I am convinced that there is a paradox in treating the Bill in such a way. One of its best elements, although we have not quite agreed on its form, is the process that it seeks to establish for deciding on sentences. My hon. Friends and I have suggested further amendments, which will no doubt be debated in another place. We can argue about the precise format of the process for agreeing sentences, but it is common ground between the Government and us that there needs to be a transparent and proper process so that none of us wakes up on a Monday morning and suddenly discovers that the guidelines have altered, that the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice are locked in mortal combat or that the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are locked in mortal combat. Indeed, combat should be avoided on the whole in the proceedings of this nation, especially when it is mortal.
	The Bill rightly sets out to create an orderly framework, so what does the Home Secretary do to it? He introduces a series of sporadic measures—one of which at least we strongly agree with, as it happens, and some of which we have doubts about—on sentencing rather than allowing the very process that the Bill will establish to be invoked for setting the things that the Bill says the process should set. I give that as one example of the irony that the No. 11 bus approach to such a Bill tends to create.
	May I end with this? I hope that, as the Bill proceeds through the Lords, the Home Secretary withstands the temptation to turn it into a yet fuller bus and that the Bill as it leaves us now can be debated in a mature fashion in another place so that we can eventually arrive at legislation without the obnoxious bits that are preventing me and my party from supporting it.

Graham Allen: I welcome the Bill, which is a good one from the Government's point of view. There are a lot of excellent things in it that will be well received out in the country. The changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the bail provisions will be welcomed by the police. The changes on double jeopardy are long overdue. A small number of cases will be affected, but they are important cases none the less. The changes to the jury trial system in a small number of cases are also long overdue, although that has been a matter of controversy. On sentencing, which the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) alluded to, we are halfway there, and with any luck we will be able to finish the job very soon. The Bill contains many good ideas and a lot of good progress has been made.

James Clappison: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the valiant campaign that he fought in Committee to make these provisions intelligible to ordinary people and to ensure that the man in the street could fully understand the law. In the same light, will he apply those considerations to trial by jury, and in particular address the risk that the Government's provisions might lead matters to fall within the domain of lawyers and become unintelligible to members of the public, so that justice might not be seen to be done?

Graham Allen: I shall come to the intelligibility or otherwise of the Bill shortly.
	As a Government Bill, it has been a resounding success; the failures have been by party and Parliament. In party terms, the Bill was eminently saleable to the electorate, yet they have been bypassed. The people on estates in my constituency and in other constituencies—they were referred to constantly in Committee—have not engaged with or been involved in the process of the Bill. In many ways, we have missed an open goal. So much of what is in the Bill has been demanded by the people out there, yet we have tried to stuff it through Parliament as fast as possible, rather than explaining what we are doing. I understand that the same is happening, I am afraid, with the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which could also be used to connect with the people out there, rather than simply consisting of changes that are of interest to—or annoyance to—practitioners. We need to ensure that people understand that Parliament has a genuine role in connecting with people.
	Parliament's fundamental process failures, the first of which was pre-legislative, have been very evident. We failed to engage all those involved in the daily coalface activities of criminal justice: serving police officers, probation officers, housing officers and victims, all of whom could have been drawn into our process by having a responsible and lengthy discussion of the Bill's fundamental principles. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. It had a valiant and brief effort at pre-legislative scrutiny, which proved of great assistance during our consideration of the Bill. Had the Committee been allowed openly to gather evidence from those who will be influenced by and use the Bill, I feel sure that it would have been far better even than it is now.

Alan Beith: Although I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the advantages of pre-legislative scrutiny, as he will realise—he is doubtless coming to this point—much of what is in this Bill could not have been the subject of such scrutiny so long as Governments persist in introducing entire provisions of substantial scale on Report. Unless we re-commit Bills to Committee, and perhaps to a Special Standing Committee that can hear evidence from probation officers and people who are trying to look after witnesses and victims of crime, this mistake will go on being made.

Graham Allen: When the Government are trying to push through legislation and are under the constraints of the parliamentary timetable, it is difficult to understand that the people out there have something to offer to the process—that a partnership of Parliament and the people is available to make the Bill better. I speak as someone who led for my party on the Child Support Bill, which we had five or six subsequent attempts to get right. I believe in listening to the voices out there, because the practitioners are the very people who can point out—often in minor detail, but significantly—the ways forward for the House and indeed the Government. If we are treated as partners, we will produce better Bills.
	On pre-legislative scrutiny, we now have the technology to talk to just about everybody through e-mail. We can open up the pre-legislative process so that probation officers in Glasgow can make a relevant contribution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am anxious not to cut the hon. Gentleman off in full flight, but he is in fact talking about the procedures of the House rather than the content of the Bill before the House. I have been quite lenient until now, but he ought to return to the content of the Bill.

Graham Allen: I will make my remarks relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the parliamentary process could do with a little burnishing. The legislative aspect of our work, as has been said, needs to be improved, as we effectively started off with a third of the present Bill. I served in Committee and worked hard on the Bill, but over the past two or three days, an additional Bill has been created which, frankly, should have been referred back to Committee before it came to the Floor of the House. That would have made it a far better Bill. Perhaps we need to look at recalling Standing Committees in similar circumstances and situations.
	Having dealt with pre-legislative scrutiny and the legislative process, let us deal with the post-legislative situation. The House should be allowed to conduct a review of the way in which the legislative process and the legislation worked. We should assess whether it has been effective and what we should consider in future. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) spoke about the Bill's connection to the public. I am sorry that Ministers have missed a great chance to reconnect members of the public with their criminal justice system. People out there feel that the criminal justice system is owned by the producers—lawyers, judges and practitioners—and has very little to do with them, and they have lost faith in it. Over the past few months in Committee, and in the past few days on the Floor of the House, we could have helped to reconnect some of them with their criminal justice system. A great opportunity has been missed, but the Bill certainly includes a large number of practical proposals, some of which will have a great impact locally.
	My only wish is that when we come to do this again, the Home Secretary and his ministerial team do not regard Parliament and the people as something to push the legislation through, merely rubber-stamping what has been devised in the Home Office and put on paper by esteemed experts, but use them to road-test legislation rigorously. If we did so, some of the additions to the Bill, and the many more additions that will be made in the second Chamber, would not be necessary. We would have a far better Bill that would not require revisiting and tinkering with in 18 months' or two years' time.

Simon Hughes: I shall start, as the Home Secretary did, with thank yous. I join him in thanking his parliamentary colleagues who led the Committee and all the other stages of the Bill. I pay tribute to the collaboration and helpfulness of the former Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), and Lord Falconer—we are very grateful to both. I also thank the Conservative spokesmen for their collaboration—we all tried to work constructively, and succeeded in doing so. As a result, there was much more light and, I hope, less unproductive heat. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) who shouldered with me the burden of a rather long Committee stage—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary deserves to be put on the record, as he said that it was not long enough, apparently. It would have been long enough to consider what was put before us at the beginning, but in the event it was not, given what appeared within a couple of minutes of the Committee reporting. The Home Secretary is entitled to expect us to do a bit more work in Committee, but he must give us the materials before we start the process, not after it has finished. Finally, the Government's civil servants are no doubt assiduous, diligent and competent. Opposition parties do not have such a battery of people, so I pay tribute to our senior adviser, the head of my office and others who have given us bullets to fire and ammunition to use.
	This is the flagship Bill, as we can see from the fact that it started Report stage with 280 clauses and 29 schedules. It is clear that the Government think that it is a ship that they need to load heavily, given the many additions—

Nick Hawkins: Until it sinks.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. The Government have added large groups of amendments, one of which, for example, had 118 new proposals in it. One result is that, in addition to the issues that were causing difficulty before, we now have additional matters that we have not even had the chance to check properly. Therefore, like the Conservatives—and, I am sure, others in the other place—we cannot allow the Bill to sail on as it is, and we will oppose it later tonight.
	There is some good in the Bill and some bad, and at least one provision is mad. The mad provision is that at the same time as the Government put cannabis in class C, they decide that possession of a class C drug will become an arrestable offence—in other words, a much more serious offence. By any objective definition, that is mad. If the public are expected to receive a simple message from the Bill—and I share the view of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that it is good if the public understand what we do—this is one policy that the public will be entitled to say that it is impossible to understand, because the messages are thoroughly confused. We will have to return to the issue in the House of Lords to achieve some sanity in the Government's drugs policy.
	The parts of the Bill that are good are parts 1 to 6, 8, 9 and 12. That is three quarters of the Bill. The parts of the Bill dealing with sentencing are also good, by and large. The Liberal Democrats believe in honesty in sentencing and we agree with the proposals for custody plus and custody minus. However, those can be delivered only if funding and support are provided for the probation service for the work outside custody. Time served in the community must be put to good effect. The money is not available and the people are not in place yet to achieve that. The idea is still theoretical and it is not likely to be delivered.
	I pay tribute to the people in the criminal justice service—the police, the probation service, the people who run the courts and the prisons—but they need the tools to do the job that we are asking them to do. I also pay tribute to one late runner in the good ideas stakes, which is the proposal that we debated earlier today to allow greater penalties for driving-related offences. That has been the result of much campaigning, and I am glad that the issue has at last found a home in the Bill.
	Before the raft of late additions, the Liberal Democrats opposed parts 7, 10 and 11, which concerned the rights of defendants. I represent a constituency similar in many ways to that of the Home Secretary, and I share with him the belief that we need to give victims more confidence in the criminal justice system, and that we need to reduce their number. I am sad that we have not had the promised victims and witnesses Bill, which has been much trailed but apparently has now been forgotten. We will not increase the rights of victims, and their confidence in the criminal justice system, by taking away rights from defendants. They are not two sides of the same coin, nor are they two ends of the same seesaw. The objective should be to increase the confidence that everybody has in the criminal justice system, which means more entitlement for victims but does not mean decreasing the confidence of those who end up as defendants.
	We have made clear our objections to some of the late additions to the Bill in the past two days. They include the suggestion that if a person is arrested, has DNA samples or fingerprints taken, and is then released with no charge, the state may hold the information. That is entirely illogical. We hope that it will be removed in the other place.
	Today, we have opposed proposals that Parliament should set the tariff—the starting point—for sentences in murder cases. We think that that should be left to others. The House should set the principles, but politicians should not set the starting sentences. We have made it clear that mandatory sentences, including mandatory minimum sentences, are bad sentences, as the courts can always judge best, up to a maximum set by Parliament.
	However, the best test of the Bill is whether we have ended up with the police being as independent as before. We fought that battle last year, and by and large we won it. Another test is whether the judiciary—lay magistrates and judges—remain as independent as before. That battle has not been won, in my judgment. We will need to change parts of the Bill to ensure that judges have the independence, within the law set by Parliament, to reach their own views on the person before them in the dock, and on the guilt or innocence in the case.

Graham Allen: Would the hon. Gentleman therefore support an amendment in another place stating that the judiciary shall always be the final arbiter on individual cases? We attempted to get an amendment to that effect through in Committee.

Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his campaign, which he knows that we support, to ensure that the Sentencing Guidelines Council is established. It could be given another name, if people wanted that, but it should include representatives other than from the judiciary to give advice about what the tariffs should be across the range of sentences. I hope that that is a battle that will be won in the House of Lords.
	My penultimate point concerns an aim that we have failed to achieve, that of ensuring that all the criminal justice agencies are equally accountable to the public. The police are very accountable, and increasingly so, but I believe that the prison, court and probation services all need to be accountable as well.
	People often ask why a certain offence is happening more often, or why crime is rising in a particular area, and it is the police who come and answer their questions. However, that is not only the police's responsibility. It is a responsibility for the probation service, for the courts, and for the people who look after our prison and custody services. The criminal justice system needs to be more broadly accountable if the public are to have confidence in it.
	We all want crime to go down. We all want the crime figures to go down, and to do so clearly. We all want prevention and deterrence to go up. We all want the clear-up rate to go up, and we all want reoffending to go down. However, if we are going to have improved justice, we must ensure that everyone ends up with more confidence in the criminal justice system.
	We have campaigned for fair trials abroad, and I hope that, when we have finished with the Bill, trials at home will be no less fair. That depends on keeping the jury system, on ensuring that the public own the criminal justice system, and on retaining those elements that have the confidence of the British public. Rebalancing the criminal justice system means improving the bits that do not have the confidence of the public, not lessening the advantages of those bits that do.
	So far, the Government have tried to undo some of the good that already exists. We shall vote against Third Reading tonight because parts of the Bill are not right yet and are going in the wrong direction. We hope that, by the time scrutiny in the House of Lords has finished, those parts will have been changed. We want to make this Bill a generally good Criminal Justice Bill that raises everyone's confidence. We do not want a Bill that is good in parts but still unnecessarily and harmfully bad in others.

Vera Baird: I rise to say what a pleasure it was to serve on the Standing Committee scrutinising the Bill, and to add my praises to those already heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), who is now the Minister of State in the Department for International Development but who until recently was a Home Office Minister. He dealt with matters with brilliance, courtesy and, from time to time, a very sharp wit.
	I should also like to thank the Committee Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). He was very nice, and very adaptable—especially when dealing with Back-Bench Labour Members with strong views. I hope that I have not done for his career. My primary purpose in rising, however, is to respond to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that he would be prepared to listen to rational argument about further change. I hope that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) were able to bring rational argument to the Standing Committee, and we would have done so again today, if new clause 25, which we tabled, had been reached this afternoon. It dealt with a matter that concerns us greatly: the fact that, in the UK, in each week of each year two children aged under 10 are killed or seriously injured when in the care of either parents or carers. Only about 25 per cent. of those deaths are followed by prosecution, primarily because of the current state of the law on joint enterprise.
	The new clause that my hon. Friend and I tabled in Committee was slightly different from the one that we tabled on Report. Even our second attempt was far from perfect, but I sincerely exhort my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look into the prospect of introducing a better piece of legislation to ensure that protection.

David Blunkett: It is a genuine pleasure, especially after the polite clashes between my hon. and learned Friend and me on this and previous Bills, to say that the matter is close to my heart, too. In the months ahead, if I still hold my current portfolio—as I sincerely hope—I am determined that we shall find a solution to that difficult problem.

Vera Baird: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to spoil the happy party atmosphere, but as the hon. and learned Lady has got that point off her chest, I remind her that Third Reading is strictly about what is in the Bill, not what she hopes might be.

Vera Baird: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and even more grateful for the Home Secretary's response. I have nothing to add.

Lady Hermon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I might not have agreed with everything that she said in Committee, especially her comments about the Queen sitting on a jury—[Interruption.]—given Her Majesty's age. However, I always listened with great interest to her points.
	I refuse to let the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) off the hook so easily. I insist that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) accompany him to North Down. The Conservative party organises in Northern Ireland, as does the Lib Dems' sister party, the Alliance party of Northern Ireland. I should love the two of them to visit North Down and explain why they are voting against the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I have already visited North Down and shall willingly do so again, irrespective of the difficulties of the right hon. Member for West Dorset.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman; I appreciate that acceptance. However, he is not allowed to let the right hon. Member for West Dorset off the hook. The right hon. Gentleman must visit in his own right.
	I shall move swiftly on. As the only Northern Ireland Member to be selected to serve on the Standing Committee, may I say what a pleasure and honour it was to do so? Every Tuesday and Thursday morning, I rose with great enthusiasm and a smile on my face to turn up at 9 o'clock for the 32 sittings of the Standing Committee. If there was a hint of sarcasm in those remarks, it was only because I am not an expert in criminal law, although I certainly was by the end of those sittings.
	I pay tribute to all the members of the Committee, especially the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, who provided wonderful inspiration. He was an extremely able Minister. As others have remarked, he showed great courtesy and ensured that the Committee worked as a collective unit to try to improve the Bill. I think that, collectively, we did so. The Home Secretary should be reassured that even though his able Minister has been moved to another Department—he is indeed a rising star—his replacement is a welcome new member of the Home Office team.
	I take this opportunity to thank Home Office officials for their attention to all matters concerning Northern Ireland. There is, however, one slight oversight. When the Bill leaves the House, will they pay attention to new clause 54? The provision deals with a serious point: the definition of "police force" in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in taking on board the recommendations in the Patten report, knew the sensitivity of changing the Royal Ulster Constabulary's title. He also recognised that the Patten report recommended that the RUC should not be disbanded, so the proper legal title, as defined in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, is the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary), which was only changed for operational purposes. I ask that the provision be reworded.
	The second point that I should like to make—I do so as someone who remains strongly enthusiastic about and supportive of the Belfast agreement—is that it is undoubtedly the case that 30 years of violence have coarsened society in Northern Ireland. We constantly read about attacks on elderly people by people carrying firearms, and antisocial crimes are unfortunately increasing, so I appreciate the Home Secretary's offer, made after an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that he would open consultations with Northern Ireland Members on the extension to Northern Ireland of the very important provisions in relation to firearms, sentencing and antisocial behaviour.
	It is important that the people of Northern Ireland feel as protected as those throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. Otherwise, I warn the Government that confidence in the agreement will be further damaged, because with the greatest respect to those who talk about decommissioning, it does not affect people's everyday lives. What does affect them is antisocial behaviour, gun crime and the illegal possession of weapons that are used in robberies or to burgle houses, so will the Government please pay attention to those provisions?
	May I say again what a pleasure it was to serve, with the other hon. Members, on the Standing Committee? I give credit to the Home Secretary and his team for taking on board the many amendments that were proposed in Committee.

James Clappison: It has been pleasure to be involved with the Bill, and it is also a pleasure to follow the contributions by the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), and by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). They have certainly been concerned to seek to do justice throughout the consideration of the Bill. I hope that I will not fall foul of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that I hope that the hon. and learned Lady's suggestion to do justice in a certain type of case is listened to, as I do with all the other contributions that she has made on the Bill.
	I join in the general comments about the way in which the Bill has been considered and about the conduct of those on the respective Front Benches. I certainly join in the tributes that have been paid to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), and I join my colleagues in wishing him well at the Department for International Development.
	It was a pleasure to serve on the Standing Committee. Whatever one's views of the substance and merits of the provisions in the Bill, it has been a pleasure to be involved with it. The Bill has been a long time in Committee, and I served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which has also scrutinised it, as well as being involved with its long consideration on Report. One thing about such a long Bill is that, no matter how long its consideration lasts and no matter how much we think that we have already heard everything that it is possible to hear, a surprise always comes along.
	The surprise for me this evening has been listening to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and finding that I agree with him. It is the first time that I have agreed with him throughout our debates on the Bill. To coin a phrase, that convergence may, I suspect, be only temporary, but it is certainly welcome. I have listened to a lot of unadulterated rubbish, quite frankly, from the Liberal Democrats about the Bill and a lot of other criminal justice legislation. I do not want to spoil the effect of what I have just said—I have heard a lot of rubbish said at great length—but I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments this evening about reclassifying cannabis as a class C drug and making such offences much more serious by attaching the power of arrest to them. We seem to have passed legislation that leaves us facing both ways at once in respect of that policy, which shows a lack of joined-up thinking by the Government—perhaps that is part of a wider picture.
	I also join the hon. Gentleman in relation to his important comments on trial by jury, and I fully support the stand taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) with regard to the trial by jury provisions. The hon. Gentleman is right about this at least: there is no trade-off between the rights of the defendant and the interests of justice and tackling crime. Reducing the rights of the defendant, and diminishing them in respect of trial by jury, will not help the fight against crime one whit.
	My right hon. Friend is right that the trial by jury provisions in this Bill cannot be allowed to stand as they are. He referred to a number of matters in the Bill that he found objectionable, and he has advanced extremely lucid arguments with regard to each one. In my judgment, however, it is the trial by jury provisions that are the most obnoxious. They are made more obnoxious by the fact that the Government have form in this regard, following their earlier attempts to curtail the right to trial by jury. If we take the two together, we can conclude only that something in the Government, and perhaps in the Home Office, is deeply antithetical to the right of trial by jury, which is a fundamental right. I hope that the Home Secretary will take notice of the comments not only of Opposition Members in that regard but of Labour Members, and of the comments made more widely about the effect on our system of justice of diminishing the opportunity for defendants to have the right to trial by jury.
	Clause 37 is an obnoxious clause. Putting aside the question of tampering with juries and all that follows from that, it will take away from an individual the right to have a trial by jury on the grounds either of the trial allegedly being burdensome to the lives of jury members, or because it is said to be too complex. Who decides whether it is too complex? It is the prosecuting authorities making representations to judges. Members of the public are cut out altogether, and potential members of the jury are never asked. Instead, we are told that it is all too difficult for them to understand. I agree with my right hon. Friend that if we put ourselves in that position we are indeed proceeding on to a slippery slope, which I suspect will lead only one way—further downhill, with more and more cases being tried without juries, and with one of the fundamental principles of our system of justice, which goes back hundreds of years, has been enjoyed by so many people in this country and is imitated throughout the world, being undermined. That is a price that is too high to pay. However much other matters in the Bill may be worthy additions to our system of justice—
	It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Orders [2 April and 19 May], put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 183.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the two local government finance motions.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 118) on Special Grant for Local Authorities Rated Excellent and 3* Education Performers under the Audit Commission's 2002 Comprehensive Performance Assessment, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.
	That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 119) on Special Grant for the Excellence in Cities and Excellence Cluster Programmes, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions on European Union documents.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9),

Racism and Xenophobia

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7280/03, draft Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia; agrees with the Government that it is appropriate to establish minimum standards in the criminal law to tackle racism and xenophobia at a European level and that this proposal strikes the right balance between protecting our communities from racial hatred and violence whilst respecting our right to freedom of expression; and supports the Government's efforts to secure agreement on this Framework Decision.

Better Environment for Business in the EU

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13982/02 and Addenda 1 to 3, Commission Communication and Staff Working Papers on a better environment for enterprises in the European Union, and No. 5765/03 Commission Green Paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe; and supports the Government's approach to creating a favourable environment, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and, more specifically, its approach to the consultation on the Green Paper seeking to achieve a robust and effective action plan which will address the barriers which face enterprises in the European Union at present.—[Mr. Caplin.]
	Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Grand Committee

Ordered,
	That—
	(1) the matter of the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative: Investing in Northern Ireland's Future be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Monday 9th June at Five o'clock; and
	(3) at that sitting—
	(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
	(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the matter referred to the Committee; and
	(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Dr. Reid.]

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Community Pharmacies

Richard Burden: Like several other hon. Members, I have a petition concerning community pharmacies. It is from the users of Knights pharmacy, Longbridge, Birmingham and other concerned residents. It contains more than 800 signatures and it reads:
	We declare that the proposals of the Office of Fair Trading to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions would result in a decline in the availability and quality of local healthcare currently provided from community pharmacies.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reject these proposals by the Office of Fair Trading and promote the NHS pharmacy plan to encourage and support local community pharmacies.
	To lie upon the Table.

John Bercow: Further to the petition that has just been presented by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), I should like to present a petition on the same subject on behalf of no fewer than 2,280 of my Buckingham constituents.
	The petition declares that
	Proposals to allow the unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions would undermine the excellent service currently provided by community pharmacists.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should reject such proposals in the interests of the best possible service to the public.
	To lie upon the Table.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES (MANCHESTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]

Graham Stringer: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the unfortunate and unwelcome closure of Booth Hall children's hospital, and the consequential impacts that that will have on secondary and specialist children's services in Manchester. I am particularly interested to get reassurances from the Minister that the commitments given during the consultation process on the closure of Booth Hall children's hospital, and the commitments given about the future configuration of children's services, are honoured in principle and in detail. Some of those commitments cannot be honoured in detail because things have changed or moved on, but I am interested in ensuring that they are honoured in detail where they can be and in principle where they cannot.
	It will be useful to give a brief history of the process that led to the decision to close Booth Hall children's hospital and what has happened since. I shall be brief, as there is not sufficient time to go through the full history in one half-hour Adjournment debate, but the issues can be summarised very simply. Over the past quarter of a century and more, it has been the steady and firm view of a number of health professionals that Booth Hall hospital should close. Just as firmly and with the same passion, virtually every person in north Manchester has opposed their view.
	This is not simply a situation in which a hospital closes and people oppose that closure out of sheer conservatism. My constituents are more intelligent than that. In recent memory, three hospitals have closed—the northern hospital, the Jewish hospital and Ancoats hospital—which were either in Manchester, Blackley or on the constituency boundary. Some closures occurred with very little opposition and some with slightly more, but none of them received the same opposition as that of Booth Hall hospital. Indeed, I have yet to meet anybody outside the health service who agrees with the closure. This has been a difficult 25 years in which I do not think that a single mind has been changed among the people who live in north Manchester.
	Interestingly—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on this—given that level of opposition and the failure of the medics to persuade people that children's services would be better if the hospital closed, under the new proposals for foundation hospitals I suspect that any election to a body that controlled Booth Hall hospital would put in place people opposed to the closure. In those circumstances, it would be extremely difficult for anybody to proceed with the closure of the hospital.
	There have been at least five consultations on this matter. Most of them were rejected, and in 1995 one consultation was conducted so badly that it ended up in the High Court in London. Manchester city council and, uniquely, the community health council brought an action, and leave was given to hold out an injunction against the consultation process. The process has not been a happy one.
	Finally, on 15 March 1997, in the dying hours rather than days of the last Conservative Administration, the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), decided that Booth Hall hospital and Pendlebury children's hospital would close and that there would be a new specialist hospital in the centre of Manchester. At this point, I wish to come to the commitments given by the then Secretary of State, which have been repeated by officials and by different Ministers in the Labour Administration and the Department of Health.
	On 15 March 1997, in the letter giving closure, the former Secretary of State said:
	"It is important, however, that these children's services retain their particular identity as a separate children's trust".
	That was the first commitment—the assurance that there would be a children's trust to look after the interests of children's services as the new specialist hospital was developed, as the two current children's hospitals continued to be run and as future commitments to children's services were given. Furthermore—this is the second commitment—he said:
	"Secondary children services would continue at the North Manchester General hospital".
	The detail of what that meant was based on a letter from Mr. Neil Goodwin, who was then chief executive of the area health authority and is now chief executive of the strategic health authority.
	In a letter on 21 January 1997, he said that there would be fully effective secondary services for children at North Manchester general hospital, consisting of general medical and surgical in-patient services, day care, out-patient and accident and emergency services. In effect, that was a commitment to move the secondary services that had existed at Booth Hall for 60 years or more to North Manchester general hospital while the specialist services moved to the brand new hospital on the Manchester Royal infirmary site in the centre of Manchester.

Keith Bradley: Does my hon. Friend recall that, similarly, in south Manchester, following the consultation and the commitments that were given, it was agreed that as the Duchess of York hospital in Withington was to close, secondary services for south Manchester should be centred at Wythenshawe hospital, while primary and community services should be developed at the new Withington community hospital? That commitment should also be honoured in any future consultation on services in Manchester.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend's recollection is exactly the same as mine.
	In autumn 2000, the health authorities issued a new consultation document suggesting a merger between the children's trust and the central Manchester trust. It is important to note that that broke the commitment given in the original closure letter, which said that there should be a separate children's trust. The rather anodyne euphemisms used in the consultation document explained that that was happening to secure significant investment. My noble Friend Lord Hunt made it absolutely clear that the funding for the private finance initiative would not be available if the private sector had to deal with two separate trusts. That was the real driver behind the decision. I wrote in objection to that consultation document.
	In the decision letter, Lord Hunt, who was then a Minister at the Department of Health, said that as a condition of approval—not as an add-on or a good idea—an NHS supervisory board to oversee the development of primary, secondary and tertiary paediatric services across Greater Manchester with the power of veto over decisions that could undermine the integrity of children's services should be set up. I think that the date of that decision letter was November 2000, but it was certainly well before the new combined trust was set up on 1 April 2001. So far, that supervisory board has not been established.
	I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister, who asked, in effect, what would have happened if the umbrella body—the supervisory body for children's services—had been set up. Uncharacteristically, she is being slightly unfair; I know that she is a very fair-minded person. The purpose of the supervisory body was to consider what could and should be done for the benefit of children's services to ensure that they were not swamped in the development not only of a new children's hospital, but of a new specialist hospital. I simply do not know the answer to my hon. Friend's question, although I am worried that things may not have happened, or that things may have happened that we do not know about, because the body was not set up. I ask her this: if a Minister of Her Majesty's Government says that something has to happen as a condition, but it does not happen, what then is the legal basis of the new trust? I do not particularly want to go down that route, but it is worth speculating on.
	I do not know whether the decision temporarily to close the special care baby unit in North Manchester general—I believe the Pennine trust when it says that it will re-establish it in September—would have been made earlier, or later, if the body had been set up, but I know that it would have been watching developments. I do not know whether the consultation on cleft lips and palates, which is going to take place, would have happened. I do not know whether the speed with which the core clinical pathways have been rendered similar in the two operating hospitals where they were previously different would have been quicker.
	I make no criticism of the chief executive or the members of the new trust. However, one has to ask whether there would have been swifter action and greater speed to reconfigure children's services if the supervisory board had been established, and without some of the blue-skies thinking of the Mann report. It suggested that we should forget everything that already existed, start afresh and consider where secondary paediatric services should go. That was an indulgent waste of time and a way to undermine the Government's commitments to providing good secondary services at North Manchester general hospital when it was decided to close the hospitals.
	I ask the Government to honour their commitments to North Manchester general hospital on the transfer of services. The people and children of north Manchester were promised that those services would remain in the community, as they have done for 60 or 70 years. Keeping the promise is a matter of integrity, honour and credibility for the Government. When Ministers make commitments, they should be fulfilled. They should not simply say that because they were made two or three years ago, they can be forgotten. If the commitments are not fulfilled, the people of north Manchester will not forget. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reassure my hon. Friends and me, as well as the people of north Manchester, that they will be honoured.
	If the previous argument—that Ministers made commitments—is not strong enough, I emphasise that if they are not fulfilled, the new investment in the super children's hospital, which will provide specialist services in the centre of Manchester, is less likely to be successful. Although I wish that it had been built on the Booth Hall site, the decision has been made, and I want the new hospital to be a great success. That is less likely if the commitments are not honoured, for a simple reason. If people who live in north and, I suspect, east Manchester, and have been used to going to Booth Hall children's hospital, cannot take children who have broken limbs, bee stings or need tonsillectomies or other minor surgery to North Manchester general hospital, they will not travel to hospitals further afield on the periphery of Greater Manchester. They will go to the new specialist hospital in the centre. In the words of several health officials, "This will swamp the specialist services." Clearly, the new hospital will not turn away a child with a broken arm or leg. However, such treatment will take up space and distract highly qualified consultants from the job that is best done in the tertiary hospital.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure my constituents and me that the commitments will be honoured in detail when possible and in principle when the detail can no longer be fulfilled.

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) on securing the debate. I think the fact that he is accompanied by not just my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) but my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) demonstrates the importance of the issue to the people of Greater Manchester—but I already appreciated that.
	Before I respond to the points raised by the my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley I want to set out the context of any developments in children's services in the NHS in Manchester. I believe that that framework should reassure him and others there.
	Services for children are never far from the headlines. How we treat our children is an important test for our health and care services, and how we modernise services to respond to their needs is a challenge for the NHS in Manchester and more widely. That is why we have been developing a national service framework specifically to set national standards intended to improve the quality of care for children and young people, and to reduce the number of variations in the provision of that care.
	On 10 April we published the standard for hospital services as the first standard of that framework. At its core is the NHS plan principle that services must be designed and delivered in the context of service users' needs. That can be achieved only by better partnership working among all the agencies that deliver services to children, and by the empowerment of children and their families through full involvement in choices relating to their care. Clinical systems must focus on the particular needs of children and young people; staff caring for them should have the appropriate training and skills to provide high-quality care; and hospital environments must be safe, healthy, friendly places for children and young people.
	This is the beginning of an unprecedented period of financial investment in the NHS in Manchester. We have an opportunity to transform NHS services for children, we can plan for expansion rather than contraction, and we can build up capacity and increase not just the volume of the local NHS's work but its quality and responsiveness.
	I fully understand the history of concern about changes in children's NHS services in Manchester. My hon. Friend described some of the background. The concern is not surprising, given that too often in the past change meant cuts. We have just published "Keeping the NHS Local—A New Direction of Travel". It gives local NHS organisations new opportunities to design better ways of developing services that are more responsive to patients' needs.
	Our objectives are clear. They are to improve the accessibility of our services, to end the automatic assumption that has prevailed for decades that reconfiguration means an inevitable concentration on fewer and fewer sites, taking services further and further from local communities—it should not mean that at all—and to challenge the view that the era of small local hospitals is over: it is not.
	The new approach set out in our guidance rests on the assumption that patients and the wider public must and always should be treated as partners rather than protagonists in the process of managing change in the NHS. It is clear that local people and Manchester Members have not always felt that in the past. There is now a new opportunity for wider engagement in developments that I will describe shortly.
	There may be strong arguments in favour of concentrating the delivery of very specialised services on fewer dedicated sites. We know, too, that many of our existing buildings need to be replaced. Those matters need to be addressed: no one disputes that for a second—least of all the public, who above all else expect the services we provide to conform to the highest possible standards of quality and safety. We must, however, move away from a viewpoint that automatically equates relocation with centralisation, and presents that as the public's only option. The development of services in Manchester will be based on those principles. It must also be based on clear evidence of what is effective, safe and likely to deliver the best services to Manchester's children. That point has been made strongly by Members locally: they have made their feelings clear to me and, I believe, to local health commissioners.
	What does all this mean for the future of children's services in the NHS in Greater Manchester? They have been in place for decades without much change. They were designed to respond to the needs of earlier generations of children. For example, serious infections and illnesses are much less common than they used to be, but technological advances mean that we can now treat more complex conditions that were fatal only a few years ago, and give sufferers from those conditions a better quality of life. More children are attending accident and emergency departments, but the time that they need to spend in them can now often be measured in hours rather than days. Such changes mean that the health service needs to consider how best to provide good quality integrated services to the children of Greater Manchester.
	Greater Manchester is benefiting from our extra investment. We now have the opportunity to relocate the current out-of-date specialist children's hospitals to a new purpose-built hospital offering state-of-the-art facilities to the children of Greater Manchester and the surrounding areas. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's concerns, particularly in respect of Booth Hall in his constituency, the outline business case of £250 million for both the new children's hospital and the redevelopment of some adult services has been approved. The fact that the intention is to have contracts signed by September this year provides a very big opportunity for Manchester to ensure that there are better facilities and technology for seriously ill children and also to enable us to look at how the expertise in that tertiary centre can benefit the development of secondary and community services across the city and beyond.
	We cannot use the additional investment to reinforce outmoded ways of delivering services. Nor can I dictate from Whitehall how children's services should be delivered in Manchester. That is a matter for the local NHS, working in partnership with the communities that it serves. But I can expect service developments to take place within the context of both the national service framework and our NHS plan vision of better quality services being provided closer to where people live. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we must ensure that an overview is taken of those developments.
	I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns about the time that it has taken to set up the supervisory board, but I am pleased that the strategic health authority has established a children's network for Greater Manchester. It has a network supervisory board which has now met twice and which will meet every month from now on to ensure that its prime objective of overseeing the development of primary, secondary and tertiary services for children is met. It includes representation from health, social care, education and the voluntary sector. It will link service delivery into a co-ordinated patient-centred approach in a way that is not constricted by traditional, professional or organisational boundaries.
	The network will work at local level, particularly in involving children, young people and their families in deciding how their services should be modernised. I believe that it should fulfil the commitment made at the time of the merger to ensure that those decisions are made in a co-ordinated way. I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing will be able to happen without the consideration and approval of the network. That will be an important way of ensuring that the system works effectively for children across tertiary, secondary and community services.
	The strategic health authority has started to engage local communities, and I welcome my hon. Friend's continued close scrutiny and contribution to that debate—one that I think has been important up to this point. I hope that this will have reassured my hon. Friend and others that we have learned from the history of dissatisfaction about the way in which the process was being undertaken. The establishment of the network and the supervisory board, their very broad membership, and the commitment to ensure that they involve local people will ensure that some of the past difficulties are overcome and that we are able to move forward to provide the sort of services that will be beneficial to my hon. Friend's constituents.
	I also recognise my hon. Friend's concerns about particular commitments given in the past. I can tell him that, in his constituency, the North Manchester general hospital will develop a children's service, and I have been assured that the strategic health authority and primary care trust are at an advanced stage of approving the children's service investment plan for North Manchester general. So, what was once a far-off dream for his constituents will become a reality.
	I hope that I can also assure my hon. Friend that those of his constituents with broken limbs will be able to make use of those services in North Manchester general hospital. I recognise his concern that we ensure that the specialist services in the specialist hospital are used for those particular functions. That is in no small part due to the focus of attention that he has brought to the issue, and I am sure that his constituents recognise his important contribution to the delivery of significant increased investment in health services across his constituency and the surrounding areas.
	May I also reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington on the particular circumstances in his part of the city? As I understand it, the development of the children's resource centre at Withington is widely welcomed in the area, and I can assure him that there is a continuing place for secondary services for children at the Wythenshawe hospital. It is important that we recognise that although we need to modernise, we must do so in the context of ensuring that we achieve continuity of services, that commitments made to people can be delivered and that we are doing that in the context of growth, not of cutting.
	I know that concerns remain about NHS services for children in Greater Manchester. Let me be clear: any changes planned will be delivered, as I have suggested, in that context of growth, not of cuts. Should that process lead to recommendations for service changes, such recommendations could be made only in the context that I set out earlier—that is, patient-centred services, better use of local hospitals, and full and active participation of service users in the development of those recommendations. Furthermore, those changes could take place only following full and open public consultation, subject to the rigorous public scrutiny system that we have in place.
	With those assurances, the extra investment and the renewed focus on the needs of the children of Greater Manchester, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends are reassured that we are indeed going forward in terms of children's services in the NHS in Greater Manchester in a way that will serve their constituents and the families of their constituents for many years to come.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Nine o'clock.